Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Project IRIS

Ben Wallace: When he will publish the results and his assessment of Project IRIS.

Joan Ryan: The iris recognition immigration system—IRIS—provides fast, secure clearance through UK immigration controls for pre-assessed passengers, reducing the possibility of identity fraud. The project will be evaluated once the roll-out of all 10 IRIS barriers is complete in December 2006. The results will be published following the evaluation.

Ben Wallace: The answer that the Home Office gave me in September 2005 was that evaluation would be complete in October 2005. As the Minister and her colleagues know, I have constantly asked for publication of the results of the pilot scheme and the Home Office has constantly denied me those results. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain why, eight months after the evaluation of the pilot project, the Government have not published the results? Will she confirm that it has met—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is fine.

Joan Ryan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know of his interest in the matter and he is right: delivery of the project has been subject to some delay, albeit for some very good reasons. The pilot phase was extended after the terrorist attacks on 7 July 2005. Enrolment stations were closed and staff were deployed elsewhere to give the project supplier, Sagem, more time to demonstrate system stability. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the response to his question to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), was that evaluation of the pilot roll-out was scheduled for completion by the end of summer 2006 and key findings would be reported within that time scale. I am pleased to tell him that the pilot roll-out is complete and I shall report my key findings within the time scale he was given. The project is important, so we think it is better to get it right rather than to rush it.

Brian Iddon: Has my hon. Friend commissioned any research to bottom the controversy that appears to be raging about changes to iris patterns, especially in pregnancy? The matter was denied by the man who developed the iris recognition project when he appeared before the Select Committee on Science and Technology a few days ago, but we should at least carry out research to prove, or otherwise, the claims that are being made.

Joan Ryan: My hon. Friend makes an important point about Project IRIS. There is ongoing research and review at all stages. I shall ensure that the information about changing iris patterns is taken on board and I will keep in contact with my hon. Friend to keep him up to date as we take note of research findings.

Antisocial Behaviour

Ann Coffey: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of individual support orders attached to antisocial behaviour orders in preventing escalation of antisocial behaviour.

Liam Byrne: Although there are only a small number of individual support orders to look at in detail, a positive picture is already emerging about how young people's behaviour is changing, which is why we are keen to see ISOs used more widely as an effective tool in the future.

Ann Coffey: As my hon. Friend is aware, most antisocial behaviour orders are applied for and issued on criminal conviction, when often a pattern of criminal behaviour has been established. Does he agree that the earlier agencies intervene the more chance there is of preventing young people from developing criminal behaviour? It is disappointing, therefore, that so few applications have been made for stand-alone civil antisocial behaviour orders with individual support orders attached? As he knows, they are designed to tackle the underlying causes of a young person's antisocial behaviour before they begin to offend. Will he review the use being made of individual—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That will be fine.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend has a long and proud record in helping to tackle antisocial behaviour in her constituency, which is, I am sure, why she has so much to say about the matter. As she knows, ISOs allow positive conditions to be attached to ASBOs for up to six months. We are keen to see them expanded, which is why we gave youth offending teams £500,000 to support their take-up, and I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that take-up is rising very rapidly indeed.

Humfrey Malins: I find increasingly that ASBOs, especially when sought by local authorities, are cumbersome in terms of paper work and very expensive—sometimes more than £10,000 a time. Does the Minister share my anxieties on that front, and will he look at ways of streamlining the procedure and making it a little cheaper?

Liam Byrne: A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have told the House that we are very committed to considering how antisocial behaviour and local injunctions and other measures can be used and streamlined to ensure that they are more effective. They are, of course, part of a package of measures, such as warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts, parenting contracts, parenting orders, injunctions and fixed penalty notices for disorder. A wide array of instruments are available to local authorities and to the police now, thanks to the antisocial behaviour legislation that the Government have driven through.

John Denham: My hon. Friend will have a long reading list, as he reads himself into his welcome new appointment, but will he include last year's report of the Home Affairs Committee on antisocial behaviour, particularly our conclusion that significant funds in urban redevelopment, regeneration, social services and education could be brought to bear much more effectively on the support of individuals and dysfunctional families by using individual support orders and other means? Will he apply his mind to ways of ensuring that that money is well spent on those difficult and disruptive families?

Liam Byrne: I am glad to tell my right hon. Friend that the Home Affairs Committee's report was on my reading list over the weekend, and I greatly enjoyed it. He will know that the reforms that we have proposed for the months to come include reform of youth provision, £52 million for extended parenting support and £28 million for intensive family support projects throughout the country. Yes, we intend to toughen the sanctions for those who commit antisocial behaviour and cause hell for their neighbours and communities, but effective support for those families must be part of the deal.

Nicholas Soames: Given the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) about the cost of ASBOs, is the Minister convinced that, in all cases, the police thoroughly follow up ASBOs, because there seems little point in issuing them if they are not properly enforced?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. It is important that breaches of ASBOs are followed up and that offenders are given a clear message that, where there are breaches, there will be sanctions. Between 2000 and 2003, nearly 800 breaches of ASBOs were reported to us, 437 of which resulted in a custodial sentence being imposed, so it is absolutely right to say that a clear message must be sent when ASBOs are breached.

John Hemming: Does the Minister believe that drug-related antisocial behaviour is an emergency that requires a 999 number to be dialled or a non-emergency that requires a 101 number to be dialled?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman and I have in common a part of Birmingham where antisocial behaviour has been a problem for some years, and he will know that the response that is required depends on the circumstances in which the breach of an ASBO occurs: professionals working on the front line should make that judgment, not a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box.

Probation Service

Michael Jack: What plans he has to increase the resources of the probation service to take account of his proposed measures on overseas prisoner removals.

John Reid: Before answering the question, I should like to take the opportunity to offer my own heartfelt condolences to the family of Nisha Patel-Nasri, whose tragic death in the early hours of Friday morning touched us all. The role of the special constable is often a forgotten one, but I believe that I speak for the whole House in thanking that group of public servants, whose endeavours provide a invaluable link between a local community and its police service.
	My first priority is to protect the public by addressing urgently the need to identify, control, consider for deportation and, where appropriate, deport those foreign nationals released from prison where no such process was applied. Additional resources are being allocated to that task. In slightly slower time, I will formulate proposals based on recent experience and my analysis of underlying problems. That process of investigation was started by my predecessor, and as it proceeds it is uncovering systemic problems that need to be addressed, and I will address them.

Michael Jack: May I and my right hon. and hon. Friends associate ourselves with the Home Secretary's comments about Special Constable Nisha Patel-Nasri?
	The Home Secretary will be aware of the role played by the probation service in supervising some overseas prisoners already released into the community, but he will be aware that, with things such as custody plus and the new special orders that will come into place, the probation service's resources are under very great pressure indeed. If it is to be effective, will he, in his new role, review the resources available to that service, to ensure that it can continue to do its very professional job?

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the hard work being done by the probation service. From his previous experience as a Minister covering probation between 1992 and 1993, I know that he will understand the work that is done and the great challenges that are faced. On his substantial point, there has already been an increase in probation service resources and in personnel—I think from some 14,000 people to 20,000. We have certainly had 5,000 extra since 2001. In addition, we are revising and reforming the probation service under the National Offender Management Service. However, neither of those two things leads me to believe that we have anything like perfection. As I study the urgent requirements—following up in the case of the deportees, which has engaged the House—I believe that we are uncovering some very serious and systemic underlying problems in the relationship between prisons, probation, deportations and so on. I hope, in the not too distant future, to come to the House not with solutions, but with a statement about what I think the problems are and how I think we should proceed in solving them. Resources may be one of those aspects.

Patrick Hall: In his second recent statement to the House on overseas prisoner removals, my right hon. Friend's predecessor referred to prisoners being deported straight from prison. May I remind my right hon. Friend of the fire that was deliberately started at the Yarl's Wood removal centre in 2002? One of the features of that incident was the presence of prisoners en route to deportation who had been convicted of violent crimes, mixed with ordinary failed asylum seekers and looked after by staff untrained in dealing with formerly violent prisoners. Will he review the current practice and try to ensure that potentially violent prisoners are removed straight from prison and not via the detention estate?

John Reid: I shall look at that, among many other aspects. As I said, I hope to come to the House with a statement in the not too distant future. There are three things that I ought to attend to. The first is the urgent nature of the discovery and consideration for deportation of those 1,023—now accurately defined as 1,019—people who were released without due consideration. The second is continuing the process started by my predecessor of examining the underlying problems—one of which may be what my hon. Friend mentioned. Thirdly, there is setting the shape for the future. In that, I have no doubt personally that it is the feeling of the people of this country—and ought to be the position of the Government—that any foreign nationals who are convicted and serve a significant custodial sentence in this country should face deportation when that is finished.

Peter Tapsell: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his eighth promotion, which I am told brings him perilously close to the dispute between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street? Has he noted how fitting it is that one of his first tasks as Home Secretary is to deal with the problem of the Afghan highjackers? May I suggest that he would get off to a flying start if he sent them home and brought the British troops back, as I advised him in his previous appointment?

John Reid: As I move effortlessly from position to position—[Hon. Members: "Higher, higher."] Such support will no doubt endear me to the Labour party conference. As I shift endlessly from position to position, I find that the hon. Gentleman, with great ease, shadows me to the point of stalking. On this occasion, I have had quite enough difficulty coping with the dangerous terrain of Afghanistan under his supervision, without entering the even more dangerous territory of Downing street.

Ian Lucas: Is not the most fundamental issue relating to overseas prisoners the identification of those prisoners in the first place? At present, neither the police nor the Prison Service have any way of verifying the information that is given to them by the individuals who present themselves. Is that not the best argument yet for having an identity register?

John Reid: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the many problems that we face is that at no stage of the whole process—through investigation, arrest, inquiry, interview, trial, sentencing, consideration, custodial sentence and release—as far as I have been able to determine in the limited time that has been available to me, is there any legal requirement on anyone to be responsible for discovering a nationality, or indeed, on anyone else, to volunteer their nationality. That is a not inconsiderable problem when it comes to dealing with foreign nationals. As my hon. Friend says, this is one of the areas in which identity cards would be a huge boon.

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary accept that one of the underlying problems to which he refers in the context of the probation service's costs and resources is the cost of being involved in questions of deportation, extradition, control orders and the like, all of which fall within the framework of the Human Rights Act 1998 in one form or another? Will he thus look to reducing that cost by repealing or amending the Act so that we can guarantee that the public's safety in this country comes before so-called human rights?

John Reid: Just as the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) has a route map on which all roads appear to lead to Afghanistan, in the case of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), all roads appear to lead to Europe. Let me address the question of the Human Rights Act. People in this country want a system of law and order and justice that is intrinsically fair as enshrined in law, and by "fair" I mean getting a balance between the rights of one individual and the rights and safety of millions of other individuals. Secondly, they want the interpretation of the law to be fair and, thirdly, they want the administration of the law to be competent and fair. Those three areas are at the forefront of my mind as I approach my new position, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will attempt to achieve those aims. If legislation is needed, we will consider it, but if the matter is merely one of interpretation and competence, we will deal with it in such a way. We will end up with laws that are interpreted and applied in a system that the people of this country believe to be fair to the vast majority of decent, law-abiding citizens, as well as other individuals.

David Winnick: Is any responsibility being taken by the most senior civil servants who were then in the Home Office and the Prison Service for the failure to deport those overseas prisoners who certainly should have been deported? Although the political head obviously takes responsibility, as the Home Secretary's predecessor did, should not the people to whom I refer recognise their responsibility for the failure that undoubtedly occurred?

John Reid: I ought to pay tribute to my predecessor in this post because I believe that he was a big man in every way. He took responsibility for a series of serious matters and mistakes, which, ultimately, he probably discovered only relatively lately. He took responsibility for beginning to remedy the problems, and we should accept that he dealt with the situation in a very honourable fashion. As elected politicians, it is in the nature of our position that we are quite rightly often expected to bear the burden of responsibility for our Departments and not to lay the blame on civil servants, and he was careful not to do that. In fairness to some of the leading members of the Department—I include in that group the permanent secretary and several other directors—they have relatively recently arrived in post. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that they will be engaged fully in answering to me to make sure that some of the underlying and long-standing problems of the Department are rectified.

David Davis: I associate myself with the condolences offered by the Home Secretary to the friends, relatives and colleagues of Nisha Patel-Nasri. I also add my admiration for the courage of that remarkable young lady.
	When does the Home Secretary believe that he will fulfil the Prime Minister's undertaking of 3 May automatically to deport every foreign national who has served a prison sentence?

John Reid: It is my aim, as I made plain today, to ensure that foreign nationals who serve significant custodial sentences—[Hon. Members: "Significant."]—in this country face deportation automatically. Five days into my position, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date by which that will be achieved, but I can assure him that that is my strategic objective. I hope to come, in the not too distant future, to the House with a statement outlining honestly what I see as some of the underlying problems, and thereafter to make proposals on how they may be rectified. I cannot at this stage tell him in what time scale the proposals will be put forward, because I want to ensure that we all, as openly as possible, address underlying problems, which I believe in some cases have been in existence for decades, not just weeks, months or years.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. When I put the question to him, I was careful to use the Prime Minister's exact words. I note that the Home Secretary did not use the same words, and I understand why—because we have to deal with realities at the Dispatch Box, not overblown rhetoric. In terms of reality, may we have some facts on the 1,023 foreign prisoners released without consideration, who were referred to earlier? As of today, how many have been deported; how many have been detained; how many have committed further crimes; and how many does he expect to deport, and by when?

John Reid: On the last question, as the right hon. Gentleman does not himself engage in overblown rhetoric, he would not expect me to give him an expectation at this stage by which time all of this will be completed. What I can do is give him what information I have; I can do no better than that.
	Of the most serious offenders, which the right hon. Gentleman will recall include rape, murder, manslaughter and sexual abuse against children, the current figure, having updated the categories by two methods—one is by redefinition, to include some serious offences that I thought ought to have been included in the first place within the more serious category; the second is to have scrutinised, or rather the police to have scrutinised, each case out of 800 on their way to 1,023, with a view to previous offences and reoffenders—is 35, of whom 26 are already under control. All of them have been considered, and the initial consideration has resulted in deportation decisions in 29 of them. Two only have been not considered for deportation, and I am asking for details of why not, and one has been deported. Of the more serious categories, we now include in that 144, of whom 55 are under control—the House should remember that some 70-odd of these were recategorised only a few days ago as being more serious—129 considered, 115 decisions to deport, 15 not and six actually deported. I shall not go through the rest of the details, but I will supply them to the right hon. Gentleman in writing.

Police Community Support Officers

Tony Baldry: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of police community support officers.

Vernon Coaker: A national evaluation of police community support officers was published on 26 January this year. The report found that PCSOs have been well received by the public and that they are valued for their visibility and accessibility. They are helping to restore respect in local communities by providing reassurance and tackling antisocial behaviour and low-level crime.

Tony Baldry: Thames Valley police estimate that over the next 18 months they will need to recruit between 26 and 32 community support officers in my constituency to provide proper coverage. So far, they have recruited just six. There appear to be two problems: vetting, which seems to be very cumbersome, and funding. The Government fund only 75 per cent. of the posts, so Thames Valley police have to find the 25 per cent. from other Government programmes, which does not seem particularly joined up. Indeed, at the moment, Horton hospital is funding two of the community support officers. I must tell the Minister that between the spin and the reality lies frustration.

Vernon Coaker: Vetting is extremely important to ensure that the right calibre of people become police community support officers. We are providing significant funding for neighbourhood policing, including for PCSOs, over the next two years, and we have made it clear that our investment will be maintained after 2008. However, community safety is an outcome shared by a number of agencies, and it is appropriate that other partners contribute and that money is used from the safer and stronger communities fund and the neighbourhood renewal fund. If all those agencies work together, we shall see PCSOs not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but across the country.

Jane Kennedy: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Jane Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House. May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new portfolio on the Front Bench? I look forward to holding him to account in the friendliest way possible in the weeks and months to come.
	In Liverpool, 69 community support officers are ably supporting the police and are well deployed and appreciated. However, Liverpool city council also employs 39 street crime wardens and, to the dismay of the chief constable, they wear an almost identical uniform to that of police officers. Will my hon. Friend keep an eye on such otherwise laudable anti-crime initiatives, which have the potential to create confusion and undermine confidence in excellent community support officers?

Vernon Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for her welcome. I hope to ensure that I work in such a way that the accountability of which she talks will be a matter of pride for both of us.
	The matter of uniforms issued to PCSOs is an operational one for chief officers. However, I believe that the common standard uniform set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers distinguishes PCSOs from police officers, while clearly identifying them as members of the police family. I congratulate Liverpool city council on its street wardens and on the work that PCSOs are doing in my right hon. Friend's area and others to reduce crime.

James Paice: May I add my congratulations to the Minister? My recollection is that as a Back Bencher serving on Standing Committees considering police and criminal legislation he was extremely robust in encouraging Ministers to take tougher action. I hope that that zeal has not been lost now that he finds himself in their position.
	The Minister will recall that a major issue of dispute between the Government and the Opposition was giving community support officers the power to detain people for up to 30 minutes, and it was decided to trial it in a few forces. In how many forces do CSOs now have the power of detention, and on how many occasions, as we suspected, was 30 minutes not adequate to enable a real police officer to turn up to turn detention into arrest?

Vernon Coaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I served on the Committee considering the Anti-social Behaviour Act in 2003, that I shall certainly maintain a robust attitude to antisocial behaviour and to crime in general. I do not have the figures on the number of areas where the power to detain has been given to PCSOs, but he will no doubt be pleased, as I am, that the Police and Justice Bill, which is before Parliament, contains a measure to standardise the powers for police community support officers across the country, one of which will be the power to detain for 30 minutes.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

Keith Vaz: What steps he is taking to clear the backlog of cases at the immigration and nationality directorate.

Tony McNulty: We have published our five-year comprehensive strategy for immigration and asylum. The issue of backlogs cannot be viewed in isolation from that overall strategy. We have developed plans to deal with immigration applications including the points-based system and the new asylum model, so that we do not simply get into the position of recreating a problem of backlogs in future. We think that we have got on top of the challenge of intake, and that has given us an opportunity to turn our attention to backlogs, which increasingly will be our focus. That has been possible only because of our redesigning of the managed migration processes and our reducing asylum intake.

Keith Vaz: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on retaining his position in the Home Office despite the fact that so much has changed around him? In the 19 years I have been a Member of Parliament, hon. Members on both sides of the House, including me, have criticised the chronic malfunctioning of the immigration and nationality directorate. Indeed, before my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) resigned as Home Secretary, he referred to its systemic failures. Will the Minister confirm that there is no question of any bonuses being paid to IND senior officials until the entire backlog of cases has been cleared, and all outstanding matters have been resolved?

Tony McNulty: May I start by thanking my hon. Friend for the welcome which, I think, he extended to me? I thank him, too, for commenting on the recent improvements in performance, but I afraid that it is not for me to discuss in detail at the Dispatch Box human resources, or pay and conditions for any civil servant, for reasons that he will understand. Staying on top of the backlogs at the IND and dealing with them is a matter to which we are devoting serious concentration and effort.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Minister expect the IND's work load to increase when foreign prisoners facing deportation claim asylum at the end of their sentence?

Tony McNulty: That is always a consideration that we must bear in mind, not simply in the light of the existing difficulties with foreign national prisoners but as a general point and a matter of law. The hon. Lady makes an entirely fair point.

Kate Hoey: Is there anything special about the IND, because it seems to lose a large number of files? In approximately one in 20 cases with which I deal, I receive an answer saying that the file has been mislaid or lost. Something has gone wrong, as that increases the backlog and people's frustration. My constituents may be prepared to wait if they know that their case is being considered, but it is dreadful for their file to be lost or mislaid, so something must be done.

Tony McNulty: Any loss of files is dreadful, I concede. It is frustrating not just for Members of Parliament but for the applicants, so we must address it. My hon. Friend will know that, together with UKvisas, we have arranged a range of activities, seminars and so on for Back Bench MPs on the range of IND business. Such matters are dealt with competently and fairly when they are brought to our attention, and hopefully we can deal far more swiftly with complaints from Members and their constituents.

Damian Green: The Minister will be aware that one big reason for those delays and backlogs is the fact that immigration officers are trying to meet Government targets instead of doing their proper job. Last night, "Panorama" revealed that the Prime Minister's target of removing more failed asylum seekers than there are new applications took precedence over everything. One immigration officer said:
	"We're going to focus purely on failed asylum seekers. Everything else must go out of the window."
	Will the Minister admit that chasing a narrow target means that backlogs build up and dangerous criminals are let out on the streets, and that meeting the Prime Minister's target has become more important than running an efficient, firm and fair immigration system?

Tony McNulty: I do not believe that that is the case. I freely accept that there has been a concentration on the tipping point target, not least as a result of pressure from the Opposition, the public and others, but it is absolutely not the case that that is to the exclusion of everything else that IND does. I do not dispute the fact that its work is sensitive, or that it is undertaken by dedicated members of staff. It is not advisable to traduce them, and I caution him against what might be termed fatuous casual empiricism.

James McGovern: My hon. Friend will be aware of the case of Osama Obade Sattar—a nine-year-old Dundee boy stranded in Pakistan because he was refused permission to return to the UK on his mother's Pakistani passport. This morning, my office received a call from UKvisas advising that young Osama could apply for a Pakistani visa to allow him to return. Given that he was born in Dundee, he has lived there since his birth, and both his parents are British citizens, can we not find a better solution? What reassurances can my hon. Friend offer the understandably distressed Sattar family?

Tony McNulty: Again, I cannot discuss a particular case at the Dispatch Box, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend afterwards to look into the matter further.

Probation Service

Stephen Hammond: What steps he is taking to improve the monitoring of offenders by the probation service when released from prison on licence.

Gerry Sutcliffe: In a statement to the House on 20 April this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) outlined a number of key proposals to improve the management of offenders on licence. Taken together, if the lesson is learned from recent reports, those proposals will result in greater protection for the public, particularly with regard to the supervision of the most dangerous offenders.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Minister for that answer, but he must accept that Home Office funding cuts have meant that only 10 per cent. of potentially dangerous offenders are interviewed by the Parole Board. Surely the Home Office must accept some responsibility for that. Can he tell the House what he and his new colleagues will do to rectify that situation?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I can only reiterate the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about what we want to achieve—to get fairness into the system, but to make sure that public protection is paramount. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), put in place a number of measures. We will also consider the inspector's report on the probation service and report to the House when we are in a position to do so.

Nicholas Clegg: May I first associate myself and my hon. Friends with the earlier remarks and the condolences expressed on the tragic death of Special Constable Nisha Patel-Nasri? Will the Minister confirm that the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation on the murder of Naomi Bryant by Anthony Rice identified flaws in the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998, rather than in the Act itself? Does he therefore agree that, rather than denigrating the Act as a whole, it would be wiser for the Prime Minister to agree with the Attorney-General, who said last week that the Act
	"has been one of the great achievements of recent years and indeed of this Labour Government"?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Naomi Bryant case was outrageous, and our condolences go to the family members. I refer to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the Human Rights Act and its interpretation and application. We will consider all those issues when we respond in due course.

Edward Garnier: I join others in welcoming the Minister and his new colleagues to the Home Office, and wish them greater success than their predecessors. The Minister will know that Home Office documents have revealed that an average of 7,846 criminals are arrested, cautioned or convicted while on probation every month, and that they are responsible for a total of 10,206 offences. He spoke a moment ago about public protection. Will he offer the House the assurance that we expect—namely, that he is interested in public protection, and that he will provide the necessary political leadership and engineer the proper strategic management? Without all those things, the rest is but words.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the new team. Clearly, the problem has been going on for some time. That is why we introduced the National Offender Management Service and why we are looking into what needs to be done. I take very seriously the inspector's reports on recent cases. We will make sure that we are able to protect the public, which is our paramount priority. The status quo cannot continue and things must change. We are putting change in place.

Police Force Mergers

Bob Russell: How many representations he has received (a) opposing and (b) supporting the merger of the Essex police force with the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire police forces.

John Reid: It is not possible to provide the statistics in the way that the hon. Gentleman has requested. However, we have received a range of submissions, many of them proposing a solution that differs from our original proposal. They will all form part of our continuous consideration.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but does he accept that there is very little support in Essex for merging Essex police with Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police forces, two counties with which Essex has very little in common? What is more important—holding the line on a wrong decision made by his predecessor, or getting it right? Here is an opportunity to be a hero, rather than a villain.

John Reid: Hope springs eternal, Mr. Speaker.
	This is not a decision that offers the choice of getting it right or pursuing the strategic objectives of my predecessor, which were based on considered evaluation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. It is clear that the present strategic structure of our police services is not fit for purpose in many ways. Therefore, the status quo is not an option. The strategic goals outlined by HMIC, and the work that was done by my predecessor, point us in the right direction. I have not had time, to be honest, to consider these matters in the considerable detail that would be wished in the hon. Gentleman's area and in many other areas, because of other events over the past week. I will be turning my mind to how we achieve this strategic objective in the not too distant future. I hope to be able to return to the hon. Gentleman with fuller detail.

Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us in the area of the Bedfordshire police are concerned that whatever the reconfiguration between the counties, resources should be released into front-line policing? I welcome the extra 24 police officers that we have in Luton. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, as part of the reconfiguration, that Luton has parity with other similar police forces? That would mean that we would have an additional 60 to 70 police officers. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that reconfiguration will give us the extra resource that we need on our front line?

John Reid: I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for the interests of her own area. She will know that there are a considerable number of police officers on the beat and in the forces who were not there when the new Labour Government took office in 1997. There are about 13,000 more police officers. In addition, far more of them are on the beat than previously. Neighbourhood policing teams, as well as the back-ups from antisocial behaviour personnel and community wardens, and so on, mean that the capability of the police in combating crime and restoring order is far greater.
	It is true that any restructuring will be aimed at further enhancing that capability. That is the intention. This will be costly, but we have already made it plain that although restructuring will be expensive we have undertaken to meet the net reasonable costs that arise as a direct result. At this early stage, I cannot speak with great authority about the position on the street in Luton. I undertake to educate myself on that in the not too distant future, and to write to my hon. Friend.

Brooks Newmark: I beg to differ with the response that the Home Secretary made to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). Essex is the size of a small European country and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. It is not the function of Question Time to allow hon. Members to differ with Ministers. The purpose of Question Time is to put questions to Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman puts a question to the Minister, I can help him out.

Brooks Newmark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I would like to know from the Home Secretary whether he will do what his predecessor agreed to do, which was to listen to the people of Essex, who voted unanimously for a no in keeping an Essex police force independent.

John Reid: Of course I will listen to the people of Essex, and to people throughout the country, along with their various representatives. That is what I have undertaken to do, as my predecessor did. He asked for people's views on these matters, and we shall consider them carefully. I have already said that we must take into account the individual parts of the whole and how the whole of our police service in England operates in its efficacy and capability. That may not always concur with the expressed wish of each of the individual components. However, we try to get the best overall capability that is possible. I think that the strategic direction that has already been set out is probably the right one in which to move and will lead to the right conclusions at which to arrive. I have already undertaken to listen, to read, to try to learn and to consider how we get there. When I have done that, I will return to the House and the hon. Gentleman will be able to question me.

Kelvin Hopkins: With a little more time in his new office my right hon. Friend will become aware that many in Bedfordshire, including me, have made strong representations in favour of a north-south merger with Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that possibility, given that all the transport links and the natural geographical coherence means that Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire work as a unit, as with the coastal counties, but possibly in two groups?

John Reid: Without claiming any particular credit, I can tell my hon. Friend that in the limited time that I have been in post, I have already become aware of that submission. As I said earlier, it is not possible to provide the statistics that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) requested—perhaps fortunately—but I am aware that a lot of differing views have been expressed on this issue. Many of those views disagree with our proposals and most of them disagree with each other, so the wisdom of Solomon, elevated to an even greater extent, may be required. The HMIC report examined the current system and said that it was not fit for purpose; it is not serving the public as it should by giving the maximum protection. That said, I want to examine exactly how we reach our end goals.

Nick Herbert: Just today, the Prime Minister said:
	"The Criminal Justice System is still the public service most distant from what...people want".
	But the merger of police forces such as Bedford, Essex and Hertfordshire, which will cover an area of 2,500 sq m and a population of 3 million, will inevitably make chief constables more distant from the communities whom they are meant to serve. Will the Home Secretary look again at the federal option advanced by the Association of Police Authorities, which would achieve the objective of strengthening protective services without the loss of local accountability? Local people do not want to lose such accountability.

John Reid: On the suggested federal option, my understanding is that it has been tried before in several areas and has not worked particularly well.

Nick Herbert: indicated dissent.

John Reid: That is my understanding, which is why HMIC did not adopt it as the preferred solution. So although I am prepared to consider every option, as a new Home Secretary, I would obviously not like to allow the hon. Gentleman to believe that I do not consider the strategic direction pointed out by HMIC to be the one that we should pursue. That said, I shall look in detail at how the matter might be dealt with. Secondly and incidentally, I do not believe that the strategic vision outlined in the HMIC recommendations is incompatible with more local accountability; the two elements could be combined. Thirdly, at the end of the day what people want is a more capable police service that reduces crime, fear and feelings of insecurity. They want a service that is seen better to protect, and to be fair to, the vast majority of people—who are decent, hard-working and responsible citizens—rather than a service that is unfairly balanced against their interests.

Police Force Mergers

Gordon Prentice: What steps are being taken to ensure that chief constables whose posts disappear with restructuring are given appropriate posts in new merged police forces.

Joan Ryan: There will be open competition for all chief constable and deputy chief constable posts. We are considering including in the amalgamation orders a provision enabling any chief constable not securing a post to transfer to the successor force for three months on their existing pay and conditions. A chief constable not securing a substantive post will be given a severance package.

Gordon Prentice: That is a disappointing reply. Why only a three-month period, and why are we saying to chief constables who were not successful in getting an appointment that people who are presumably at the height of their powers are going to be pensioned off? Will not this reorganisation, like every other one, cost an absolute arm and a leg, and might it fail to deliver the benefits that we are told to expect?

Joan Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I know that his own Lancashire and Cumbria force is very keen to see the merger go ahead. He will know that, in line with restructuring, the senior appointments processes are being developed through a joint police advisory board and police negotiating board working group, on which the Home Office's chief police officers staff association and the Association of Police Authorities sit. So it would be a little premature to outline to my hon. Friend the exact nature of the terms and conditions, but he can rest assured that they are being looked at in some detail with the very people who will be affected and their representative organisations. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, this can be an expensive process; however, it is about creating police forces that can provide for our communities the protection that they both want and deserve.

Patrick Cormack: I welcome the Minister and the Home Secretary to their new posts.
	This set of mergers has been brought forward with intemperate haste, without proper consultation, in constituencies up and down the country. There is real danger to morale in the police force and, furthermore, to morale among the public, who will consider that they will have a much more remote police force and will not continue to have a local chief constable. Will the Minister please take more time over this?

Joan Ryan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I repeat to him what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in response to a similar point—that he will consider all these matters. Our first priority must be to take account of the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, "Closing the gap", which said, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that the 43-force structure is not fit for purpose in protecting the public. Creating police forces that are fit for purpose must be our first priority.

HMP Chelmsford

Simon Burns: What the total maximum capacity is for prisoners at HMP Chelmsford; and how many prisoners are held there.

Tony McNulty: As at 12 May 2006, the useable operational capacity—the total number of prisoners that an establishment can hold, taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime—of HMP Chelmsford was 575. The total population of HMP Chelmsford was 575.

Simon Burns: Those figures are extremely encouraging, because they suggest that some of the gross overcrowding of the past has been stabilised and reduced. However, can the Minister tell me whether the work on the expansion of the prison has recommenced after its interruption? When does he expect that work to be completed? That will give the prison an extra 120 spaces, which will help to prevent overcrowding and help it to re-establish itself in future.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that building costs increased above the original estimates and that, as he intimates, the project was temporarily suspended. It was determined to be value for money and is back online. The conversion of the old health care centre into offices is complete, and work on the new house block and visitor centre is well under way. That will provide the 120 extra spaces to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The work is expected to be completed by late 2006.

Islamist Terrorism

Michael Gove: What steps he is taking to tackle Islamist terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: While effective security measures, intelligence and policing are necessary, ultimately international terrorism will be best countered by democratic values, discussion, persuasion and social solidarity. The key is to engage in genuine and sensitive dialogue with the Muslim communities and not to shy away from difficult issues. That process has already begun. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has a longstanding interest in the matter, and I would be happy to discuss the issues with him personally should he so wish.

Michael Gove: I thank the Secretary of State for his robust and balanced response and for his invitation, which I look forward to taking up. Last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) asked him whether the suicide bomber, Mohammad Siddique Khan, had been under sustained surveillance before 7 July. The Secretary of State replied that at the time, his understanding was that there was not a sustained programme of surveillance. This weekend,  The Sunday Times reported that MI5 had extensive transcripts of Mohammad Siddique Khan planning jihadist activities. It appears that the Secretary of State may have been misled by the security services. Can we have a guarantee that, in the absence of a full independent inquiry, every transcript and detail of the surveillance of all the suspects is passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House?

John Reid: May I, through the hon. Gentleman's question, correct some of the misleading statements and misrepresentations in the weekend press? First, when I engaged with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) after the discussion in the Chamber, it was reported that I said that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre was right and that I was wrong. In fact, I said the opposite, and there were at least five witnesses to the conversation. I said that I had been right in the Chamber when I said that there was no sustained surveillance of the two gentlemen in question, Khan and Tanweer, that they had been peripheral to another investigation, that the decision had been made because they were peripheral, and that it would be a wrong judgment to use resources and assets to pursue them rather than the main characters in the main conspiracy that was being pursued. That is the first point, and I stand by that.
	My second point is that the Security Service gave the Intelligence and Security Committee full co-operation in its investigation of 7 July. Indeed, since the weekend, the Security Service has reviewed the evidence that it gave to the ISC in the light of recent press allegations. It remains confident that nothing that the service knew has been withheld from the Committee. I do not intend to go into specific details, for obvious reasons, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has given me the opportunity to set the record right and to correct the misleading impressions that formed the basis not only of the right hon. Gentleman's comments but of the front page story, which was in several areas very misleading.

Shahid Malik: I commend the Government for their overall approach to dealing with terrorism. They are taking a twin-pronged approach, and the first prong involves robust anti-terror legislation, of which I have been a strong and vocal supporter. Mohammad Siddique Khan was one of my constituents. The other prong involves dealing with causal factors. Over the weekend, research reports were published by the universities of Oxford, Warwick, Birmingham and Derby showing that there was disproportionate unemployment, underachievement and overcrowding in Muslim communities. Can the Home Secretary reassure me that the Government are not going to take their eye off the second prong of their approach to dealing with terrorism?

John Reid: I can absolutely guarantee that to my hon. Friend, and I commend him for the work that he has done in this area. I want to restate the view that I put forward at the beginning of this question, which is one that I have carried over from my other positions in the Government: we will not defeat terrorism by security forces, intelligence services and the armoury of weaponry that comprise the conventional forms of defence alone. They are a necessary but insufficient condition. Unless we address the underlying socio-economic problems, both domestically and internationally, we will not be successful. I therefore commit the Government to continuing in that direction. We have made a good start, but I believe that we have a long, long way to go. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on this matter.

Points of Order

David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the two British soldiers killed in a roadside bomb attack near Basra on Saturday was 19-year-old Adam Morris, a private in the 2nd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment and a resident of Coalville in North-West Leicestershire. The thoughts of the House and of everyone in the local community will be with his family at this dreadful time. Mr. Speaker, have you had any intimation that the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement on this matter, either today or tomorrow, to allow us to ask questions about it? The alternative means of obtaining that information—written questions and debates—represent a more protracted and less satisfactory process.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House appreciates what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and our hearts go out to the families of those soldiers. We appreciate the hard work that is done by every serviceman and woman in foreign lands. This is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Minister concerned. However, the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record, and I thank him for that.

Ben Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Home Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), he stated that, following a question that I posed to him on his statement last week about whether one of the London bombers had been under surveillance for months or years, I had misled the newspapers over the weekend. He said that he had confirmed to me afterwards, outside the Chamber, that the man was not under surveillance. My recollection of that meeting, outside the Chamber and in front of the Home Secretary's officials, was that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I let Question Time run over for two minutes, and I will not let it run any further. He seems to be trying to extend it.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 9th February 2006 (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.
	3. On consideration, proceedings on Government new clauses shall be taken on the first day and shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	4. All other proceedings on consideration shall be taken on the second day and shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on that day.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	This programme motion amends the previous programme motion, which was agreed on 9 February following the Bill's Second Reading. At the request of the Opposition, the Government have extended the time available for Report and Third Reading from one to two days. We are happy to agree to that, given the importance of the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled. As I and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) begin our second week as Ministers, we look forward to a vigorous debate over the next two days.

David Heath: I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to his new responsibilities. He said that he looked forward to a vigorous debate. I suspect that he might have found exactly the right opportunity for one in this Bill.
	I do not want to delay the House on the programme motion. We welcome the fact that we have two days, especially as the Government are in full retreat on this matter and have tabled a great number of new clauses and amendments.
	In procedural terms, however, let me point out the disadvantage of paragraph 3 of the programme motion, which requires that all Government new clauses shall be considered and dealt with on the first day before the point of interruption. When so many Government new clauses and amendments have been tabled, that distorts debate on the Bill. In future, will business managers consider whether that might be an unnecessary requirement? If we have two days for debate, we should order business in the most appropriate way to ensure a full debate on all the matters before the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

[Relevant documents: First Special Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, Session 2005-06, Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 878. Second Special Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, Session 2005-06, Government's Response to the First Special Report on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 1004. First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2005-06, Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 894. Seventeenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny: Eighth Progress Report, HC 1062. Third Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2005-06, Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, HC 1033.]
	 As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Power to remove or reduce burdens

'(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order under this section make any provision which he considers would serve the purpose in subsection (2).
	(2) That purpose is removing or reducing any burden, or the overall burdens, resulting directly or indirectly for any person from any legislation.
	(3) In this section "burden" means any of the following—
	(a) a financial cost;
	(b) an administrative inconvenience;
	(c) an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability; or
	(d) a sanction, criminal or otherwise, for doing or not doing anything in the course of any activity.
	(4) Provision may not be made under subsection (1) in relation to any burden which affects only a Minister of the Crown or government department, unless it affects the Minister or department in the exercise of a regulatory function.
	(5) For the purposes of subsection (2), a financial cost or administrative inconvenience may result from the form of any legislation (for example, where the legislation is hard to understand).
	(6) In this section "legislation" means any of the following or a provision of any of the following—
	(a) a public general Act or local Act (whether passed before or after the commencement of this section), or
	(b) any Order in Council, order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other subordinate instrument made at any time under an Act referred to in paragraph (a),
	but does not include any instrument which is, or is made under, Northern Ireland legislation.
	(7) Subject to this Part, the provision that may be made under subsection (1) includes—
	(a) provision conferring functions on any person (including functions of legislating or functions relating to the charging of fees),
	(b) provision modifying the functions conferred on any person by any enactment,
	(c) provision transferring, or providing for the transfer or delegation of, the functions conferred on any person by any enactment,
	(d) provision abolishing a body or office established by or under an enactment,
	and provision made by amending or repealing any enactment.
	(8) An order under this section may contain such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision made by amending or repealing any enactment or other provision) as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
	(9) An order under this section may bind the Crown.
	(10) An order under this section must be made in accordance with this Part.'.
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to new clause 19, in line 2, after 'he', insert 'reasonably'.
	Amendment (b) to new clause 19, in line 3, leave out second 'or' and insert 'and'.
	Amendment (c) to new clause 19, in line 17, leave out from 'means' to end of line 23 and insert 'a public general Act'.
	Amendment (d) to new clause 19, in line 28, leave out 'functions of legislating or'.
	Amendment (e) to new clause 19, in line 36, at end insert—
	'(7A) Provision made under subsection (7)(a) may only confer functions relating to the function of legislating to the extent permitted by section [Sub-delegated legislative functions].'.
	Government new clause 22— Northern Ireland.
	New clause 1— Restriction on powers under Part 1—
	'A Minister may not make any provision by Order under Part 1 unless that provision would have the effect of—
	(a) simplifying or modernising legislation,
	(b) making the overall effect of legislation less onerous, or
	(c) removing inconsistencies or anomalies in legislation.'.
	New clause 4— Part 1 (limitation on burdens and costs)—
	'(1) Save insofar as the Order relates to a person exercising a regulatory function, a Minister may not by order under Part 1 make provision which—
	(a) makes more onerous any duty which may be owed by any person, or any obligation under which any person may be;
	(b) imposes any duty or obligation on any person which is greater than any duty or obligation from which it relieves that person;
	(c) results in increases in cost for any person; or
	(d) creates any disbenefit for any person which is greater than any benefit to that person.'.
	New clause 8— Section 12 (Limitation on Burdens and costs)—
	'Each draft Order laid in accordance with section 12 shall contain a certificate made by the Minister to the effect that it does not make provision which—
	(a) makes more onerous any duty which may be owed by any person, or any obligation under which any person may be;
	(b) imposes any duty or obligation on any person which is greater than any duty or obligation from which it relieves that person;
	(c) results in increases in cost for any person; or
	(d) creates any disbenefit for any person which is greater than any benefit to that person.'.
	New clause 9— Part 1 (impact on small business)—
	'(1) An order under Part 1 must, where its application extends to small businesses, be for the purpose of—
	(a) removing or reducing any burden,
	(b) re-enacting provision having the effect of imposing any burden in cases where the burden is proportionate to the benefit expected to result,
	(c) the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies.
	(2) In this section, the meaning of "small business" is the same as in section 249 of the Companies Act 1985.
	(3) In this Act "burden" includes—
	(a) a restriction, requirement or condition, (including one requiring the payment of fees or preventing the incurring of expenditure) or any sanction (where criminal or otherwise) for failure to observe a restriction or to comply with a requirement or condition,
	(b) any limit on the statutory powers of any person (including a limit preventing the charging of fees or the incurring of expenditure), and
	(c) any matter which in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown causes inconvenience or imposes cost.'.
	New clause 17— Disapplication of European Communities Act 1972 (No. 2)—
	'(1) An order made under Part 1 containing provision relating to Community treaties, Community instruments or Community obligations shall, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, be binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom.
	(2) In section 1 and this section—
	"Community instruments" and "Community obligations" have the same meaning as in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68);"Community treaties" has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.'.
	Government amendment No. 10
	Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11 [Clause 1], leave out from '"legislation"' to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
	'(a) means a provision of—
	(i) any public general Act or local Act, or
	(ii) any Order in Council, order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other subordinate instrument made under a public general Act or local Act,
	(b) in relation to and notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68), includes provision made before the passing of this Act under Community treaties, Community instruments and Community obligations,'.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 5 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'(3A) In this Part, "reforming" shall mean repealing, simplifying or clarifying or making different administrative arrangements for achieving its purposes.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 11 and 12
	Amendment No. 74, in page 2, line 36 [Clause 3], after 'he', insert 'reasonably'.
	Government amendments Nos. 13 to 22, Nos. 24 to 26, Nos. 28 to 32 and Nos. 35 to 37.
	Amendment No. 75, in page 6, line 24 [Clause 12], at end insert—
	'(ba) explain why the Minister considers that the provision cannot be made by primary legislation;'.
	Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39, Nos. 56 to 58 and Nos. 60 to 63
	Amendment No. 78, in page 19, line 3 [Clause 34], leave out
	'extending outside England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland'.
	Government amendments Nos. 64 and 65

Patrick McFadden: I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for his good wishes.
	Let me begin by thanking my friend and predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), for his hard work in taking this Bill through its Second Reading and Committee stages. I know that it has been a great wrench for him to have to leave this Bill to take up his new post in the Department for Work and Pensions.  [Laughter.]
	Today, we are debating a series of important amendments to the Bill, which are in large part the Government's response to some of the criticisms raised and fears expressed about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire made clear at earlier stages, the Government did not approach those issues with a closed mind. We said that we would listen, but we were also anxious to have a better regulation system, which could root out and change unnecessary or outdated burdens on business, the public sector, charities and the voluntary sector. We should not forget that this is the third time in 12 years that Parliament has legislated on these issues.
	The amendments will rightly take us into some detail, but the wider need for the Bill could not be clearer. We operate in a more global and competitive world economic environment than has ever been the case in our history.

John Redwood: I welcome the Minister to his interesting job. What measures will he want to bring forward for repeal or amendment under these clauses: His predecessor seemed to find it difficult to give us a list of examples? He can rest assured that Conservative Members are waiting for those and will support them.

Patrick McFadden: That, of course, will be a matter for the Departments once the powers are in place.
	Huge changes have brought hundreds of millions, potentially billions, of people into world markets and the world trading system for the first time—for instance, the tearing down of the Berlin wall and the communications and technology revolution over the past 10 to 15 years.

Patrick Cormack: I, too, welcome my near neighbour to his post and wish him well. He gave a perfectly reasonable answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), but could he not circulate a questionnaire to the Departments and return tomorrow with a shopping list from each one?

Patrick McFadden: I am not sure whether the Departments will have provided such lists by tomorrow, but I shall be giving examples of what we might do under the orders.

Oliver Heald: I join others in welcoming the Minister to his new position. He will know that each year the Department of Trade and Industry puts on its website a list of all the new amendments that it will make on two dates during that year. The latest item on the website shows that over the next year we shall see 40 pages of new regulations. Why will the Minister not commit himself to producing a list of the 40 pages that are to be scrapped?

Patrick McFadden: That is exactly what the Bill is about. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a tendency for regulation to grow under Governments of both colours, which is precisely why we need a robust mechanism that can root out and remove unnecessary regulation.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I should like to make a little progress, but I will give way once more.

Andrew Turner: Along with the rest of the House, I congratulate the Minister. Can he tell us, though, whether an item of regulation on which the DTI is consulting at this moment—the deregulation, as the Department calls it, of Sunday trading at the behest of the big companies—would be eligible to proceed under the Bill?

Patrick McFadden: I do not think that it would, because of safeguards and other procedures in the Bill which we shall discuss in due course.
	Opposition Members and I could, and perhaps will, exchange results of surveys showing how Britain is placed in various international economic leagues, but Labour Members, certainly, believe that it is well placed to succeed in the globalised economy. Employment is at record levels, reflecting the success of policies intended to secure employment opportunities for all. We have one of the highest rates of employment in the G7. We are a hard-working, enterprising and creative country. Our openness and flexibility are great strengths. The way forward is not to hide from the changes that are taking place in the world, or to wish them away; it is to ensure that we are best placed to succeed in this world by making certain that Britain remains a great country in which creativity, enterprise and hard work are allowed to flourish and to be rewarded.
	It is sometimes said that this is a race to the bottom—a competition to level down standards and conditions of work. We reject that notion. We believe that people should be treated decently, that there should be a clean environment, and that there should be a labour market that ensures fairness. As I said earlier, however, we also know that under Governments of both parties regulations have tended to grow. We must have a process in Government to root out unnecessary regulation, and a remedy to hand that allows Government and Parliament to act when unnecessary burdens on businesses, charities and the voluntary sector have been identified.
	It is precisely because the need for competitiveness is so important in the new and more open world in which we live that the Bill is necessary, and those outside the House look to us to keep our eye firmly on that bigger picture as we debate the legislation over the next two days.

David Winnick: I congratulate my hon. Friend. As one who expressed concern about the measure because of its potential effects, may I say how pleased I am that his predecessor, and the Government generally, listened to and recognised the concerns expressed not just by Labour and Opposition Members, but by the Trades Union Congress and other bodies? While the Government did not intend to do any of the things that it was suggested they might do, other Governments could have, and I am very pleased that, as far as I can see, the Bill now contains the necessary safeguards.

Patrick McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for those comments. I very much agree that the amendments that we are outlining today will show that the Bill is firmly focused on the better regulation purposes for which it is intended.

Mark Fisher: Following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), will the Minister direct us to where in the amended Bill it is made clear that those powers apply only to regulation and not in any way to general legislation? If that is not the case, there is a danger that the burden that will be removed is the burden on Government to put legislation to the scrutiny of the House.

Patrick McFadden: New clause 19 will outline the focus of the Bill on better regulation purposes.
	Our subject matter is sensitive, because it is not just about what the Government of the day might want; it also takes us into the realm of the relationship between Government and Parliament, and Parliament's proper role in the scrutiny and approval of Government proposals in this sphere. In that respect, I thank the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees that produced reports on the Bill; they have contributed positively and constructively to the amendments.
	The heart of what we are discussing is new clause 19 and the amendments related to it. Fears were raised that whatever my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said, the Bill might be used not for the purposes of better regulation but to change fundamental rights and freedoms through secondary legislation.

David Howarth: I am glad that the Minister has reached the subject of new clause 19 at last. Does he agree that subsection (3) would still allow the Government to remove by secondary legislation the right to jury trial? Jury trial might be considered to impose "a financial cost" on employers or to be "an administrative inconvenience" to a number of different bodies.

Patrick McFadden: I do not believe that the Bill in any of its guises would allow the removal of the right to trial by jury, nor could it be used, if amended today, in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his well-deserved promotion, together with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong) whom I wish well in her responsibilities.
	Although this new clause allowing for the unscrambling of eggs that were wrongly scrambled might be an improvement, it does not remove the onus of responsibility on the Government in this field to consider moving towards sunset regulation, which would change the whole culture and ensure that bad regulation would have to come back to the House if it were to be renewed.

Patrick McFadden: We shall come to an amendment dealing with sunset clauses later in the debate. Perhaps it would be better to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point then, so at this stage I will say only that it would seem odd to legislate for a new regime of deregulatory powers to give people certainty and then to say that they were only temporary. We owe those who operate the orders a degree of certainty.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is very early in the debate and in his ministerial career, but I urge him not to fall into the trap that his predecessor fell into when discussing the Bill, which is simply to assert that something will not happen or that he could not conceive of it happening or that it is not the Government's intention for it to happen, rather than actually expressing in statutory form that it cannot happen. That is exactly the difficulty that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) pointed out; although the Minister may be absolutely convinced that he has no intention of using the Bill for an inappropriate cause, a future Government may, and that is why so many Members are concerned about it.

Patrick McFadden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but it is precisely because those fears were raised and those concerns were expressed that we have tabled the amendments.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick McFadden: I should like to make a little progress.
	New clause 19 makes it clear beyond doubt what the purpose of the Bill is and what the regulatory reform orders will be used for and, importantly, how they will affect Departments. Together with new clauses 20 and 21, those provisions make up the new order-making powers of part 1. New clause 19 provides a power to remove or reduce burdens that result from legislation, and it defines what is meant by burden.

Edward Garnier: New clause 19(2) states what the purpose of the new clause is, and subsection (5) states:
	"For the purposes of subsection (2), a financial cost or administrative inconvenience may result from the form of any legislation (for example, where the legislation is hard to understand)."
	Which Acts of Parliament passed since 1997 would come into that category?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention was worth waiting for. What is meant by that is that there are processes whereby legislation is consolidated into an understandable form or a more accessible form, as I think he is aware.

John Bercow: Whatever the merits of the new clause, it does not appear to be comprehensive. May I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? Will the provision of the new clause be subject to the negative procedure or to its affirmative counterpart?

Patrick McFadden: Orders issued under the new clause are dealt with later in the Bill, but the Minister would make a recommendation to the relevant Select Committee, which would be free to question whether the negative, affirmative or super-affirmative procedure should be used.

Richard Shepherd: Will the Minister return to the question that was asked of him about whether new clause 19(3) includes the abolition of juries, for instance? One could argue that they present "a financial cost", "an administrative inconvenience" and "an obstacle to efficiency". What protects us from that?

Patrick McFadden: Clause 3 contains preconditions that stop the making of an order that would remove necessary protections or prevents anyone from continuing to exercise any right or freedom. That would be the response to the suggestion to do something as radical as removing trial by jury, which has been mentioned.

David Howarth: I thank the Minister for giving way again; he has been very generous with his time. The problem all along with clause 3 is that it is drafted in subjective form—what matters is what the Minister considers to be necessary, and the Minister might consider the abolition of jury trial to be necessary to achieve a ministerial objective. Will he give way on amendment No. 74, which would insert the word "reasonably" into clause 3, and therefore might go some way towards solving the problem?

Patrick McFadden: We will come to that amendment, but the Minister's initial judgment is not the beginning and end of the process. There are a series of safeguards, including the verdicts of Select Committees, the consultation that must take place and the other safeguards in the Bill, so no order will be based purely on the Minister's opinion, reasonable or otherwise.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I should like to make some progress; I have been generous in giving way.
	Government new clause 22, Government amendments Nos. 10 to 12, 13 to 22, 24 to 26, 28, 29 to 32, 35 to 37,38, 39, 56 to 58, 60 to 63, 64 and 65 are consequential on the new order-making power under new clause 19.

Kenneth Clarke: If, as I gather, the Minister is moving on from new clause 19, which is the hub of the whole thing, I am very grateful to him for giving way. I have listened to him give way repeatedly. Although the new clause is well-intended, its terms are still amazingly broad. Am I right in believing, looking at subsection (3), that these powers could be used to abolish a tax, to relieve an interest group or trade from a burden of taxation, or to abolish a crime, to make something lawful that was previously unlawful under the criminal law? Those may be very desirable things, but they are subject to more safeguards than consultation and Select Committees. They should be subject to parliamentary debate before any such step is contemplated.

Patrick McFadden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a number of issues. On tax, the Bill makes it clear that orders affecting taxation could not be raised in that way.

Jim Devine: I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend; it has been quite a season. I wonder whether he is aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said on deregulation, in  The Daily Telegraph in July 1999 that we kept trying, but we never succeeded.

Patrick McFadden: I was not aware of that, but I will let the statement speak for itself.
	I will deal with new clauses 20 and 21 in more detail in due course, but let us explore new clause 19 further, because it provides a power to make provision in an order for the purpose of removing or reducing burdens—direct or indirect—that result from legislation. The definition of "burden" in new clause 19 would allow a Minister, by order, to remove or reduce burdens that take the form of a financial cost; an administrative inconvenience; an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability; or a sanction, including criminal sanctions, for doing something or failing to do something in the course of an activity. That means that a Minister may propose by order to decriminalise offences or reduce or remove sanctions if they are no longer considered appropriate.
	That definition of "burden" is deliberately broader than that in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. That is because the definition of "burden" in the 2001 Act has proved too narrow in that it allows the removal of only a requirement, condition or restriction. As a result, the concept of "burden" in the 2001 Act is complex and difficult to apply. It puts a heavy and sometimes disproportionate burden of legal analysis on Departments. For instance, the regulatory reform orders under the 2001 Act cannot clarify or simplify legislation unless in so doing a narrowly defined legal burden is removed, reduced, re-enacted or imposed.

Mark Fisher: Does the Minister accept that a burden on one group in society may well be a freedom for another group? I do not understand how the interpretation of subsection (3) of the new clause would relate to, for instance, employment rights. From the point of view of the employer, which may be the state or a private company, employment rights are undoubtedly a burden on efficiency and productivity. According to my reading of the new clause, it would appear that employment rights could be removed by order of a Minister.

Patrick McFadden: There is, of course, the protection of necessary rights and freedoms, which is set out in the Bill. That would protect against the situation that my hon. Friend outlines. The new definition of "burden" will also allow us to target more effectively the order-making power on removing or reducing the burdens that businesses, charities and voluntary organisations wish to see removed.

Edward Garnier: I listened carefully to the answer that the Minister gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on taxation. Clauses 5 and 6 offer us some comfort. However, it is quite clear that, under clause 6, the Minister is not prevented from adding to the criminal statute book offences that attract a penalty of up to two years. There are plenty of offences that the criminal courts deal with now that carry a maximum penalty of up to two years. Is he telling us that the word "burden" does not encompass new criminal offences that a Minister might dream up that do not attract a penalty of more than two years?

Patrick McFadden: If the Select Committees thought that a Minister was proposing something that unnecessarily dealt with imprisonment of up two years, they could use their power of veto as protection against that.

Edward Garnier: The great thing about Report is that one can have these to-ing and fro-ing debates. That is important and I am grateful to the Minister for entering into the debate in that spirit. This point is most important. We are dealing with primary legislation that gives a Minister huge powers to make legislation. If the Minister is telling me that I, as a representative of my constituents, will have to rely on some as yet unformed Select Committee to exercise its judgment in a way that would be helpful to me and my constituents, that is extremely worrying. He must surely be able to understand that the making of criminal law should be dealt with here, right the way through every stage.

Patrick McFadden: There are penalties in the 2001 Act, which, in some ways, reflect those in the proposals before us. Under the 20-odd regulatory reform orders that have been produced under that Act, I do not think that the kind of problems that the hon. and learned Gentleman is setting out have transpired.

John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: Not at the moment.
	The types of better regulation initiatives that the order-making power will allow us to deliver include reducing the administrative burdens of regulation, consolidating and simplifying legislation to make it easier to understand and work with, and deregulation. It will also allow us to reduce administrative burdens, such as by simplifying administrative requirements for business when setting up a business or hiring staff, by ensuring that inspection is risk-based to reduce the burden on those who comply with regulation, thus concentrating inspection on those who do not, by simplifying and making more transparent and less onerous the way in which people and businesses need to apply for consent from public authorities, and by allowing, in certain key instances, the complete exemption of small businesses, charities and others from burdensome regulation to allow them to concentrate their effort where it is most needed.

William Cash: The Minister probably knows what I have in mind already. The omission from, or black hole in, the Bill—and, indeed, his speech—is the lack of any attempt whatsoever to deal with the problem of the burdens on business that come from European legislation.

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill deals with us having a much clearer and more simple process of translating into British law some of our obligations from the EU. It does not somehow change our relationship with the EU on a policy basis so that we do not have such obligations, although I suspect that he wishes that it did. I am afraid that whatever I can offer the House today, I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman satisfaction on that point.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Of course, I do not have the advantage of being a lawyer, but I am rather worried about what the Minister has just said. Is he suggesting that if the Government of the day decide, those who run small businesses may be exempted from safety legislation that is available to those who work in larger companies?

Patrick McFadden: No, I am not suggesting that at all. If a measure that would do away with a necessary right or freedom was proposed, it would not be in line with clause 3 of the Bill, so I do not believe that such a thing could happen.
	If I can move on to deal with the four definitions, it may help the House. On financial cost, an order may change legislation if its effect would be to remove or reduce a financial cost on an individual, business, voluntary organisation or charity. A Minister may thus propose an order that reduces or removes any unnecessary costs that result from legislation. That definition includes both direct and indirect costs, so an order may reduce both the costs incurred by a regulated business, charity or voluntary organisation and the costs that they pass on to their customers. For instance, the power could be used to deliver exemptions for small businesses from some disproportionately stringent audit requirements, which could have a marked effect on reducing their costs. It could also be used to deliver a proposal in the Charity Commission's simplification plan that would exempt small charities from certain audit and registration requirements altogether so that they could focus their resources on providing help to those whom they were set up to support.

Kenneth Clarke: Let me return to my previous point. The hon. Gentleman is giving a narrow illustration of what lifting a financial cost means, but I still cannot understand why the Bill would not allow a Minister to seek to repeal a tax by using the process. Let me be helpful to him. If, for example, a future Government wished to repeal the climate change levy, it seems to me that that could be done by statutory instrument so long as the Government ensured that they had a majority on the relevant Select Committees. I would hope that no Government would want to do that, but we do not want to legislate to enable a Government to do so. It is no good for the Minister to say that such a thing will not happen because that is what his predecessor kept saying. Will he point out the provisions in the Bill that would rule out any abolition of a tax by use of statutory instrument?

Patrick McFadden: Clause 5 states:
	"Provision under section 2(1) may not impose or increase taxation."
	 [Interruption.] Bear with me. It is not possible to use the powers to create a new tax, but it will be possible to reduce a tax if it meets the procedures and safeguards. In practice, however, tax reform would be dealt with in either a Finance Bill or a tax law rewrite project, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
	I wonder whether I can move on to administrative inconvenience.

John Bercow: No. I am terribly sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but his answer to my right hon. and learned Friend will not do. The hon. Gentleman has just offered a normative statement; that this is the way it ought to be done, courtesy of a Finance Bill. I ask him again; what guarantee can he offer that that would not happen in the future and that the clause would never be used for the purpose to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred?

Patrick McFadden: If any Minister proposed to abolish taxes in the order-making power, he would have to consult the relevant stakeholders, and the Select Committees would have a say and a veto if necessary.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman illustrates why the Conservatives propose a deregulation Bill, which would put on the face of a Bill all the things that we wish to amend or deregulate, so that the House has the benefit of a proper debate. Those of us who want to deregulate also have worries of a constitutional nature. Why does not the Minister put on the face of this Bill all the things that we want to deregulate so that it is done properly?

Patrick McFadden: Precisely because we wish to allow Departments and Ministers the flexibility to propose deregulatory measures in a wide-ranging way. We have responded to some of the fears and criticisms by making what the Bill is to be focused on clearer. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be too inflexible.

Rob Marris: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. He has made a considerable impact in Wolverhampton, and I am sure that he will do the same as a Minister.
	I apologise because I have to leave the Chamber shortly to go to a meeting, but I suggest that my hon. Friend outline to the Opposition the background, which they do not seem to understand, to new clause 19 in terms of the safeguards that are built into the Bill. It is not a matter of a Minister simply putting some forward. My understanding is that if the Government amendments are successful, any proposal will have to go through two Select Committees. There may be a Government majority on those, but there is a Government majority in the House. That is the way in which the House works. Having voiced considerable concerns on Second Reading, I am now worried that there are so many safeguards that the Government have gone too far the other way. I urge him to keep an open mind and explain the safeguards.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes a typically sensible point. I have referred several times to the safeguards in terms of a Minister making a proposal, his explanatory note for the proposal, the consultation required and, crucially, as he said, the consultation with the Select Committees and their power to reject a proposal.

Mark Fisher: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick McFadden: I want to make some progress, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
	The definition of burden relating to administrative inconvenience will allow the Government to deliver reductions in administrative burdens on business that are being identified through the comprehensive administrative burden reduction project taking place in government. The final results and Government targets to reduce administrative burdens will be published in departmental simplification plans in due course. Where appropriate, the order-making power will allow the Government to deliver real savings in time and money for businesses, charities and voluntary organisations by, for instance, reducing form-filling requirements and making it easier to comply with regulations. Those reductions in administrative burden will free up time and money so that businesses can improve productivity and promote innovation.
	The definition of burden as "administrative inconvenience" will also allow the Government to amend rules that are now considered unnecessary but, because they are enshrined in statute, can still bind companies and impose an administrative inconvenience. For instance, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to taking forward a proposal, submitted via the better regulation portal on the internet, to amend the rules on selling game. I am sure that many Conservative Members will take an interest in that.
	Under the Game Act 1831, anyone wishing to sell game from a shop must apply for a licence from the council and affix to the front of the shop a board stating so. Repealing those requirements will save businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds and relieve the administrative burden on them. That is a small measure, but it is the kind of thing that could relieve those affected of a substantial burden. As the rules are enshrined in primary legislation, only a Bill could repeal them. The order-making power in new clause 19 will provide a more proportionate measure for repeal.
	I emphasise again that we also want to reduce administrative inconvenience for our public services and voluntary organisations. Reducing administrative inconvenience will, for example, allow teachers, who often raise this with all of us as MPs, to spend more time with pupils, and allow the NHS to concentrate more of its time on caring for patients.
	As I said earlier, independent surveys have often found that the UK ranks highly in international comparisons of competitiveness, but in the face of global change no country can afford to be complacent. As Mr. John Cridland, the deputy director-general of the CBI stated in  The Times in March, the Government must be able to deliver more and swifter deregulatory measures to ensure that the UK remains competitive.

Andrew Miller: Although my constituents will no doubt be interested in my hon. Friend's example about game, may I take him a little closer to the real world in my constituency and ask him to confirm that administrative inconvenience cannot in any way be interpreted as something that would cover necessary protections? For example, record keeping under the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974 is unambiguously a necessary protection. Will he confirm that nobody could use the clause to interpret it as a burden?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform, makes a very strong point and he is right to say that clause 3 talks of the provision not removing "any necessary protection" or
	"any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise."

Mark Fisher: While my hon. Friend is on the issue of barriers to productivity, will he return to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) about taxation and the climate change levy? Many companies see that levy as a barrier to productivity. In answering the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my hon. Friend referred to clause 5, which is about precluding taxation, but it precludes only the ability to impose or increase taxes. Why does it not include the ability to reduce or delete taxes? If it did so, it would meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and ensure that such provisions could not be abused.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend will have his opinion of whether that would count as a deregulatory measure, but we have an annual Budget and Finance Bill which set out the taxation proposals, and that is how we deal with such matters in this House.

Oliver Heald: Surely the Minister could just pray in aid the Labour record; it never abolishes taxes.

Patrick McFadden: I shall move on, as it would be churlish to mention VAT on fuel and the other taxes introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party.
	An example of a measure to boost productivity is one that allows companies to patent a new technology that would encourage greater innovation in the economy. That is something in which the Department of Trade and Industry takes a great interest. We could remove obstacles to productivity by making it easier for someone to set up a company and by reducing bureaucracy and the number of forms that need to be filled in. The fourth limb of the definition of a burden involves a sanction, whether criminal or otherwise, and we wish to allow Ministers to propose by order to decriminalise offences or reduce or remove sanctions for regulatory offences. That has been carried over, as I said earlier, from the legal definition of "burden" in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The Government believe that it should be possible to decriminalise or reduce sanctions on people who have not complied with regulatory obligations in cases in which targeted sanctions are no longer considered appropriate.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is talking about burdens, but does he accept that the new clause would increase the overall burden? It might reduce the burden on 1,000 people while increasing the burden on 1 million.

Patrick McFadden: I do not believe that that is the case. Subsection (2) of the new clause states that the
	"purpose is removing or reducing any burden, or the overall burdens, resulting directly or indirectly for any person from any legislation."
	The provision could not be used to increase the burden. However, the burden may increase for someone in the system, even if it is reduced overall.

Christopher Chope: In that case, will the Minister accept my amendment (b), which replaces "or" with "and", thus ensuring that the new clause cannot be used to increase the overall burden?

Patrick McFadden: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak to his amendment. However, new clause 19 emphasises the reduction in the overall burden and takes care of the issue.

Robert Smith: rose—

Patrick McFadden: I should like to make some progress.
	The definition of "burden" in new clause 19 provides the flexibility to supply the wide-ranging better regulation initiatives necessary to deliver the reform that businesses, the public sector and voluntary and charitable organisations want. The new clause focuses the order-making power in a different way from the 2001 Act, as it is output-focused and concentrates not on the way in which legislation should be reformed, but on the reasons for that reform. The order-making power in the 2001 Act concentrated more on the way in which legislation could be reformed. It removed legislative restrictions and so on but, after five years, that has proved limiting, and it has not provided the breadth of better regulation initiatives necessary to deliver the Government's better regulation agenda. It has not provided the scope of deregulation to which the main Opposition are committed, so useful regulatory reform orders could not be delivered. The change in emphasis will make it easier and quicker for Government Departments to introduce proposals to make a genuine difference to the regulatory and inspection burden.

James Brokenshire: It is interesting to consider to whom the burden applies. There is a protection built into new clause 19, as the provision cannot apply only to a Government Minister or a Department. However, the caveat is limited by proposed subsection (4), which exempts Ministers and Departments that "exercise...a regulatory function". Can the Minister tell me where "regulatory function" is defined, or can he provide me with an assurance that that provision will not be misused?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next part of my contribution. If he bears with me, I hope to provide him with reassurance.
	New clause 19 has been drafted to prevent the inappropriate removal of orders that fall only on Ministers or Government Departments. In earlier proceedings, the fear was expressed that the order-making power could be used by Ministers suddenly to stop providing public services. The new clause provides that burdens falling only on Ministers or Government Departments can be removed, but only in so far as they are burdens that affect the Minister or Department in the exercise of a regulatory function. We believe this answers the fears expressed on those core public service points, although we did not believe that those fears would ever be realised through the operation of the Act. The new clause ensures that it will not be possible to make an order that stops the provision of public services because they may be considered a burden on Government.

Edward Garnier: To some extent, what the Minister has just said is reassuring. However, public services are increasingly being farmed out to the private sector or the quasi-private sector. They are being off-loaded by Ministers so that they need not have responsibility for them. Would the Minister's comments bite on those extra-governmental organisations which provide a public service?

Patrick McFadden: The Department remains responsible for the regulatory function. I am interested to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply some criticism of flexibility in the provision of public services, to which his party is also committed. The new safeguard is substantial and ensures that an order can remove a burden falling on Government only where the Government themselves act as regulator.

David Howarth: On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the central question is what is meant by Government Department. How far does that go? Does it include quangos, private sector providers and anyone who might count, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, as a public body, which would include bodies such as universities? The Minister should take the opportunity to explain to the House what is meant by the phrase.

Patrick McFadden: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, perhaps I shall do that.
	The Government have a number of regulatory functions—for example, the company law regulatory functions within the Department of Trade and Industry, and the pesticides directorate, which has regulatory functions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government believe that these regulators, too, should conduct their business in a manner that is risk-based. For that reason, it should be possible to use an order, if necessary, for better regulation purposes to change an aspect of these Government regulatory functions, so that all regulators conduct their business in a way that is risk-based. Orders should be able, for instance, to move these Government functions into those of an independent regulator if it were more efficient to do so.
	Two consequential amendments should be mentioned in this context. Of the many amendments before us, I draw the attention of the House to amendments Nos. 38 and 39, which ensure that any Minister laying an order to be made under new clause 19 must include in the explanatory document laid before Parliament, as appropriate, an assessment of the extent to which it would remove or reduce burdens as defined in new clause 19. So we have on the one hand the more focused order-making power, and on the other hand an explanatory memorandum from Ministers relating precisely to that power.
	Two further consequential amendments on which I shall touch briefly are amendments Nos. 60 and 62, which relate to the definition of regulatory functions. Amendment No. 62 inserts the definition of regulatory functions, which was previously part of clause 24, in clause 32 instead. That is because it is now relevant to both part 1 and part 2, because of new clauses 19 and 20.
	New clause 19 provides that an order may not remove or reduce burdens which affect only a Minister or Government Department unless, as I said, that is in the exercise of a regulatory function. New clause 20 provides that a Minister may, by order, make provision which he considers would secure that regulatory functions are exercised so as to comply with the five better regulation principles. We shall discuss that new clause in more detail later in our proceedings.
	The focusing of the power in new clause 19 on the removal or reduction of burdens and the additional safeguard that has been added mean that we are confident that the clause creates the output-focused rationale for a legislative vehicle to deliver regulatory reform effectively.

Robert Smith: The Minister accepted amendment (b) in defining the scope of new clause 19. Without amendment (b), all overall burdens are not necessarily removed. Provisions can be restrictive in allowing just the removal of any burden. In the process of that door being opened by removal of any burden, that could overall provide more burdens on people.

Patrick McFadden: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not accepted amendment (b). We may discuss that further.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been incredibly generous and solicitous towards the House.
	I am still concerned about the potential application of the new clause to the proper responsibilities of public services. Let me offer the Minister a scenario. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are responsibilities on, for example, national health service trusts under the terms of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, where they are considering changes in the provision of services to involve local people in and consult them on the proposed changes. Can the Minister assure me that nothing in the clause would ever allow such public agencies to argue for a removal or reduction of their public consultation responsibilities? On the face of it, the danger exists, at least under a less benign and progressive Minister than the hon. Gentleman, for precisely such an eventuality to occur.

Patrick McFadden: It is clear—it has been made clear in new clause 19—that only Ministers and Departments will be affected in terms of their exercise of a regulatory function. In these scenarios, which have been rehearsed throughout the passage of the Bill, it may always be possible to predict this and to predict that. If we go down that road, we will end up with a Bill that will be a beautiful parliamentary instrument in that it closes up every possible avenue to which the hon. Gentleman and others may draw attention. At the same time, it would not be an effective weapon in reducing deregulation.
	That scenario has not been dreamed up by me. It is what has happened on two occasions when the House has tried to legislate on these matters. I ask hon. Members who raise these matters, which they have every right to do, to bear it in mind that business is watching our proceedings. Businesses, charities and the voluntary sector want an outcome at the end of this proposed legislation that will work. We must beware of continuing to amend, close off and hamper legislation so that it becomes, as I have said, a beautiful parliamentary instrument but not a useful deregulatory instrument.
	I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that new clause 19—

Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I will give way one more time, and that is to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister confirm that he has said nothing to alter the fact that new clause 19, even with the restrictions in proposed subsection (3), would prevent a future Government from perhaps looking at the burdens on those involved in pest control and deciding to use that vehicle to remove, for example, the ban on fox hunting?

Patrick McFadden: I do not know how many hours, weeks and months the House spent discussing fox hunting. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that any Minister could propose a deregulation order that would sail through a Select Committee, he predicts a future House that I do not think will be in place. However, there is another point that has been raised in relation to the Bill, which relates to the extreme Government point, as we might wish to term it. What if these powers could be used by an extreme Government to destroy our freedoms? If we ever had an extreme Government in the United Kingdom, I do not think that at the top of our list of worries about what they might do would be regulatory reform orders.
	They would be able to use primary legislation to pursue their ends—a point that I ask the House to bear in mind.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: No; I really do want to make progress.
	New clause 19 and its associated amendments are a response to some of the fears and concerns that have been raised about the Bill. I hope that, in discussing them today, we have been able to assuage some of those fears. Those amendments give us a deregulatory power that is firmly focused on the better regulation aims that we want, and which the official Opposition say that they want, to achieve. They focus the Bill in such a way as to answer those fears and concerns, but they have not crossed the boundary that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) rightly warned us about crossing. I commend them to the House.

Oliver Heald: We are grateful to the Minister for setting out the effect of these significant new clauses and amendments. We particularly welcome new clause 19, which is a major climbdown; combined with the other new clauses and amendments, it is definitely a step in the right direction. But as will become clear during our debate—you would expect this of any good Oliver, Mr. Speaker—we want more.  [Interruption.] The Minister scoffs, but I thought it worth making the point.
	The House will be aware that these new clauses and amendments would not have been necessary had the Government been prepared at the outset to listen to the widespread concern about, and criticisms of, their original proposal. I pay tribute to the Select Committees and their Chairmen, which have played an important role in the campaign, but also to those outside Parliament such as the TUC, the Institute of Directors, the press and other media, and various blogsites. This is an important victory for Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny.
	Time and again in recent years, we have had to deal with badly drafted and ill-thought through legislation, or legislation that simply does not have the effect that the Government intend or claim. That was certainly the case with this Bill, which in its original form was dubbed by some of its fiercest critics an attack on parliamentary scrutiny, and even the "abolition of Parliament" Bill. It is good that a major concession has been made at this stage, rather than having to rely on their lordships in the other place to make all the running.
	Of course, the Bill should have been about deregulation and reducing the burdens on British business, which have escalated under this Government. Perversely, it has turned out to be almost entirely constitutional in its impact. Deregulation was not mentioned at all, despite the fact that, as I pointed out on Second Reading, the British Chambers of Commerce estimates that the increase in regulatory burden has cost some £50 billion since 1997, that we are passing 15 regulations a day—50 per cent. up on the figure under the previous Government—and that during the same period, we have fallen from fourth to 13th in the league of the world's most competitive countries, according to the World Economic Forum. According to the International Institute for Management Development's "World Competitiveness Yearbook", we have fallen from ninth to 22nd, but whatever measure one looks at, it is clear that, after nine years of Labour, Britain is less competitive and moving in the wrong direction. The burden of regulation is one of the most consistent complaints that Members in all parts of the House hear when talking to business men and women, whether at national or local level.
	Like all the business organisations that responded to the Government's consultation before the Bill was introduced, we were in favour of legislation that would make deregulation easier. I thank the BCC, the CBI, the IOD, the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses for all their help and support. They wanted proper safeguards to be included in the Bill, just like everyone else.

Patrick McFadden: I predicted that we would be trading surveys. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the World Bank survey of September '05 said that the United Kingdom was second in the European Union and ninth in the world as regards the country with the best business conditions?

Oliver Heald: The Minister says that he wants to trade surveys, but the problem is that our position is getting worse. All the surveys show that the trend is adverse—it is against Britain and against competitiveness, and that is what needs changing.
	This really was a dreadful Bill, and we said from the outset that a range of changes needed to be made if it was to have any chance of making it on to the statute book. It needed to focus on deregulation, and it needed to have what I described as a veto. Luckily, Ministers are now prepared to consider that, although their proposals are still too restrictive. The Bill also needed to specify what kinds of laws cannot be dealt with using the order-making power. When first introduced, it said that a Minister could change any law in any way for any purpose. That was clearly unacceptable. Ministers are now moving to try to concentrate on deregulation and provide the veto. That is welcome. However, there remain some areas of concern that we will want to debate, not least the Law Commission proposals, where there seems to be very little to constrain what happens, and the veto, which seems to have been very tightly drawn.
	When the concessions started to be made, I was quite amused by the way in which Ministers described what they were doing. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), who struggled through this long campaign and must be relieved to have moved on, said:
	"The time has come for those who claim to want to tackle bureaucracy to stand up and be counted, and let the Government of the day get on with the crucial task of cutting unnecessary red tape."
	The Minister, who is not in her place, said:
	"I...stress the need now to get on with the task of removing barriers to productivity that will benefit hundreds of thousands of businesses, charities and public sector workers".
	One begins to ask oneself where they have been for the past nine years as the Government have piled on the bureaucracy and the red tape, and which party has consistently argued for proper deregulatory measures during that time.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that our proposal before the last election of having an annual deregulatory Bill to implement the necessary regulatory budgets Department by Department would be a much better way forward, because we would not only be able to debate all these matters in Parliament, but genuinely cut the burden?

Oliver Heald: Of course, my right hon. Friend has a proud record in this area. Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who invented deregulation.
	The Department for Trade and Industry has on its website a list of all the measures that are going to be taken on the two dates when regulations are laid. It amounts to about 40 pages of new regulations that are coming through. The Government spend a lot of time talking about the principle of one in, one out—for every new regulation, one will be scrapped—but does it ever happen? Does it heck. We see no list of regulations that are to be scrapped, just vague promises. It is time to change the culture in Whitehall to one that is about light regulation, deregulation and trying to take the burdens off the back of business.
	New clause 19 may not be perfect, but it is a major step forward, and we certainly welcome that.
	New clauses 1, 4 and 8 represent my attempt to focus the fast-track procedure solely on deregulation. The Government have gone far enough for me not to wish to press the new clauses. However, new clause 4 touches on a point made in amendment (b), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He was very active in Committee and was one of the original members of the deregulation taskforce, so he has strong credentials on deregulation. If he moves that amendment, I am likely to support him. My hon. Friend is seeking to establish that the net effect of an order made under new clause 19 should always be deregulatory. We believe that that is a sound principle, and that proposal is to be supported.
	Amendment (a) to new clause 19 and amendment No. 74, tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cambridge (David Howarth), would require Ministers to be reasonable in their considerations under new clause 19 and clause 3 respectively. I look forward to hearing the arguments for those amendments, which I suspect are implied in their wording. I certainly would not rule out supporting that approach. There is always a possibility of judicial review if a Minister acts in a totally unreasonable way, but the amendments could add a lesser sanction to the provisions that would provide a useful way of concentrating minds.

David Winnick: I was quite critical of the Government's original proposals, and I am very pleased that these changes—the hon. Gentleman calls them concessions—have now been made, as I said to my hon. Friend the Minister earlier. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman since he started speaking at the Dispatch Box. Is it the case that he does not agree—I will put it no more strongly than that—with his hon. Friends, whose various interventions on the Minister gave the impression that the Government would continue to have the powers that we do not want them to have, even theoretically? May I assume from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he disagrees with his hon. Friends?

Oliver Heald: I would go so far as to say that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would improve the drafting of new clause 19, and I am therefore supportive of their efforts. However, I cannot argue with the fact that new clause 19 represents a major climbdown and a step in the right direction. I personally feel that it has saved parliamentary accountability in an important area. I am still unhappy with certain other areas of the Bill, however. For example, it confers far too wide a power in saying that the Law Commission may make a recommendation on any matter—even a highly controversial and important one—without any guarantee that it will be debated on the Floor of the House. I do not accept that. Similarly, the terms of the veto that have been offered are inadequate. However, new clause 19 is a step in the right direction. I hope that that explains my view to the hon. Gentleman.
	I also welcome amendments Nos. 23 and 26, which will tighten the way in which the Law Commission's recommendations are to be dealt with. I am still not satisfied with the overall arrangements for the Law Commission's recommendations, but I welcome that tightening. We would certainly be prepared to look at the whole Law Commission issue with the Government. Previously, the House has always dealt with Law Commission recommendations using the Standing Orders of the House. Standing Orders Nos. 58 and 59 apply a fast track to consolidation measures, for example. I am not sure that that is not a better way of tackling Law Commission measures than what is proposed in the Bill. Unless we can find a way of allowing non-controversial Law Commission recommendations to pass, while ensuing that controversial ones are properly debated, I shall be unhappy with new clause 21. That is just a warning, however, because we have not reached that new clause yet.
	New clause 9 is an important proposal, and I look forward to hearing the Government's views on it when the Minister winds up the debate. We believe that it is necessary to consider the needs of small businesses separately when measures of deregulation are proposed. There is already a plethora of examples of that happening, including exemptions in different categories involving businesses with fewer than five, 10 or 15 employees, and so on. Some exemptions apply when a business's rateable value is below a certain point, or when its turnover is lower than a certain amount. There is also a range of regulations providing different kinds of exemptions for small businesses.
	When considering the regulatory regime for business, there is a strong case for requiring the appropriate Minister to consider whether the proposed regulation will be appropriate for small businesses. There is wide support for that requirement in the business community, even among large businesses. For example, the Institute of Directors believes that, on balance, there is a case for applying small firm exemptions. In its report on the subject, it said:
	"The burden of regulations often has a disproportionate impact on SMEs because they lack both the resources and the staff to deal with them...Exemptions...should be determined on a case by case basis. Small businesses have flourished in the USA partly as a consequence of this approach."
	What we are talking about is allowing Government the choice to impose a regulatory burden on big business, which might be appropriate, and to decide that it would not be appropriate for small business.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making a series of interesting points. On this point, however, will he give the House a few examples of precisely what he means?

Oliver Heald: I would be happy to do that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Better Regulation Commission considered whether providing exemptions created disincentives to growth, but did not find much evidence of that. Its report, "Helping Small Firms Cope with Regulation", on exemptions and other approaches, made it clear that small firm exemptions were a useful tool to ensure that there was not an over-burdensome regime for those companies. I mentioned the various categories and thresholds that apply, and there are small business exemptions in 50 or 60 areas. At the moment, however, there is not a legal requirement that there comes a time when the small business impact is considered, although the Cabinet Office talks about that. I believe that there would be no harm in a specific provision that deals with small business, and I suggested such a provision in Committee. Interestingly, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that it believes that the relative proportion of the burden of regulation on small business is too large, and that it hopes that Ministers will consider such an approach.

Andrew Miller: I want to clarify this point, as the Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am Chairman, must look to the future when there might be a less benign Government. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of the official Opposition, that he would not include in those remarks measures such as the minimum wage and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974?

Oliver Heald: All that I am saying is that, at a time when regulations are being made or removed, the role of the small company needs to be considered. I am going no further than that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, our policy is to accept the minimum wage.  [Interruption.] Well, we accept the minimum wage, so he has not made a superb point.
	New clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), seeks to ensure that where a fast-track deregulation order is made in connection with a provision concerning our EU obligations, it would be legally binding and effective. It is hard to disagree that that should be the position, and I believe that it probably is the position, but I would be interested to hear the Minister's views. The manner in which member states make their law is a matter for member states, and if Parliament decides to make law by order, that is for our Parliament rather than the EU.
	The Government climbdown in new clause 19 is to be welcomed. There is a case for some amendment of it, about which we will hear in a moment, and we are open to considering that. I would like to hear the Minister's response to new clause 9, which is designed to help small business. At this stage, we are minded to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stone on new clause 17, which clarifies the law as regards the EU.

Andrew Miller: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that new clause 19 represents progress—indeed, substantial progress. To send a note of caution to my hon. Friends in the Cabinet Office, let me say that I was mightily pleased to receive a letter dated 11 May promoting me to the Privy Council, which I thought was a real step in the right direction, and then I saw that my name was spelt wrong.

Edward Miliband: Long overdue!

Andrew Miller: I thank my hon. Friend.
	My worry about the Bill is that there have been two steps forward and one step back. The new clause represents real progress, but this debate would have been unnecessary had the Government listened to my Committee's advice in the first place. The Committee said that the matter should have been dealt with by means of pre-legislative scrutiny, and a number of Ministers have told me privately that they agree with that. The House produced a device for the purpose of looking to the future, and we could have used it sensibly. After all, the underlying principles of the Bill do not divide the House; what we are arguing about are the detailed mechanisms involved.
	I consider new clause 19 to be a substantial step in the right direction, and I urge the House to accept the principles that it embodies, but a number of points should be considered carefully. The Minister will deal with most of my concerns when he explains where the line will be drawn in the limitation of orders, but we shall not be able to get to grips with some other aspects until we examine the Standing Orders and determine how the RROs should properly be dealt with. We need to establish whether they will be dealt with through the existing Legislative and Regulatory Reform Committee, through a hybrid of some kind, or through a vehicle yet to be devised. We need to keep an eye on the ball. We also need to think ahead about how we will expect the House to empower the Committee or Committees involved to do the necessary work.
	I agree with the thrust of the Minister's remarks, but what he should glean from the debate and his extensive and interesting weekend reading is the fact that, while the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 has not proved as effective as it might have, the blame lies not with the House but with Government Departments. I do not blame Ministers. There is an inertia in the system, with which any Member who has been in the House any length of time will have had to deal. Certainly two or three Conservative Members who have been Ministers in important Departments will take the point. It is extremely difficult to achieve momentum, however determined a Government may be.
	On page 13 of my Committee's report, the First Special Report of Session 2005-06, we have published a chart. It is in microdot form, but there is a good deal of data that are worth examining. The worst example given is that of the Sugar Beet Research and Education Order 2003, which was dealt with by the predecessor Committee. I do not suppose that any Member present recalls what the order did—that does not constitute a challenge—but it spent 1,800 days floating around the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That is extraordinary. I do not know the reason for that because no one ever explained it to the House, but therein lies the core problem that makes the Minister's job that much more difficult.
	We worked hard—I say "we", because the Government generously consulted all four relevant Select Committees closely, and there has been dialogue with the Liaison Committee through the Father of the House, as well—to find a way through the difficult area of definition, and I hope that the methodology adopted proves to be right way. It is better than the alternatives that some of us floated, which included having omnibus lists of exclusions—I look at the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who had the biggest omnibus of the lot. I think that the mechanism adopted is the better one, but we need to be extremely precise and to make sure that it is clearly understood that we are discussing not burdens on Ministers, but burdens on people outside this place—burdens that the Minister has the power to do something about, for it is he, the Minister, who will bring an order before our Committee.
	Under existing legislation, we spent a tortuous afternoon dealing with the most recent Forestry Commission order. We had to debate what the Forestry Commission was, in constitutional terms. Before that debate, I was not aware that the commission is a non-ministerial Government Department. That raised the interesting technical question: if it is a non-ministerial Department, which Minister introduced the order? However, just as the House accepts the Paymaster General introducing orders on behalf of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, we accept the structure that relates DEFRA Ministers to the Forestry Commission.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is clear in stating the areas in which he does not want the power to be used, but are there any in which he would like it to be used? Does he have a list of measures that he would like to be removed?

Andrew Miller: Yes—I could list a number of items. I would like the House to consider giving my Committee or a successor body investigatory powers and the power to recommend to the Government areas in which they should act. The right hon. Gentleman has done private work in that respect on behalf of his Front Bench. Serious consideration should be given to whether, in future, my Committee or its successor should have investigatory powers, which it lacks under its current Standing Orders. In our everyday work, we all come across examples of regulation that cause us to ask why they are still on the statute book, or why they were put on to the statute book, whether by a Conservative or a Labour Administration. That matter should be examined in the context of the debate on the Standing Orders.
	I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden), and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), on the sterling job they have done of getting us away from the rather odd debate in which the House found itself as a result of the Bill that emerged from Committee. Substantial progress has been made, although a few obstacles remain in the way of getting the legislation smoothly on to the statute book. I hope that during our proceedings today and tomorrow, Ministers will listen carefully to the serious points that are made, in particular by members of the four Select Committees, with a view to ensuring that the Government's replies do not preclude further amendments, should they be necessary. However, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on adopting the imaginative approach that new clause 19 and the associated amendments reflect. I hope that the new clause will have the support of the House.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) said that the Bill that left Committee engendered an odd debate. I do not think the debate was remotely odd; it was entirely proper and necessary, because the loose wording that had been adopted drove a coach and horses through our proper parliamentary scrutiny, which is why so many of us were extremely concerned.
	I again welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. I am sorry that his first parliamentary outing is on one of the most controversial Bills of the year, although at least he has the advantage of introducing amendments that improve it rather than make it worse. He tried manfully to put as good a gloss on the process as possible, although he was not aided by the Minister for the Cabinet Office who left after 12 minutes, which I found surprising given the context of the Bill—but there we are.
	The Minister said that the Government had listened to what had been said by the Committees that have considered the Bill. The Government may have been listening but they certainly did not give the impression that they were prepared to budge an inch in the Standing Committee, where the then Under-Secretary at the Cabinet Office simply replied with assertion after assertion after assertion that it was not his intention, and that if it was not his intention it could not possibly be anyone else's intention, to abuse the terms of the legislation, so it was all right.
	The only thing that made the Government think again was the message from the Government Chief Whip in another place, who told them that the Bill was as good as dead unless it was substantially amended before it went there. That is why the Government have tabled the amendments that we are discussing today—rightly so, because the Bill is important. We all wanted to support it and to develop a consensus that enabled us to do so, but we can do that only if the Government remove the wholly unsatisfactory parts of the measure. However, I can tell the Minister that I wholeheartedly agree, without demur, with one of his amendments: No. 10, which leaves out clause 1. That is an extremely good amendment.
	New clause 19 makes the situation better, but it is by no means the final article. It moves some way towards providing a limiting definition, but that definition is still open to misinterpretation and abuse. The problem with the original scope of the Bill was the huge width of interpretation that it allowed Ministers, and indeed a future House. In Committee, we argued that that could be dealt with in three ways: prescription, proscription or protections. All three are valid and more than one of them will be necessary to achieve a workable Bill.
	In this case, the Government have adopted prescription. They have set out the matters that are the province of the Bill. They have said, by definition, what the Bill is intended for and thus, by implication, that there are other matters for which it is not intended and that are outside its scope.
	Some hon. Members would argue strongly—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) may well be one—that it would be better to have a proscriptive list of those statutes or aspects of statute that should fall outside the Bill's scope. Nevertheless, I welcome new clause 19 as at least a move in the right direction, but as the Minister knows, we and others have tabled amendments to new clause 19, and I ask him, rather than simply rejecting them out of hand, to look carefully at what they would do, because they would not work against the principles that he espouses. Indeed, they would support his view. Amendment (a) would introduce a single but very important word—"reasonably"—into new clause 19. That test of reasonableness would provide an objective, rather than subjective test of whether a Minister was doing what the Minister says would always be a Minister's intention in those circumstances.

John Redwood: Is there anything that the Liberal Democrats would like to deregulate under the Bill? I always think of them as being very regulatory and bossy, rather than otherwise.

David Heath: I cannot deal with the right hon. Gentleman's misconceptions about my party, but when he intervened earlier on the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), I thought that the reply was valuable. The Regulatory Reform Committee ought to have a wider brief than simply responding to what Ministers put to it. The hon. Gentleman suggested an investigatory role, but it could have a collating role. I should like that Committee to perform a genuinely deregulatory function in inviting suggestions for deregulation that ought to be put before the House in the form of an order.
	I do not understand why such things must come from a Minister. The hon. Gentleman said that he excused Ministers from responsibility over what happens in their Department. I do not excuse them for a moment. They have the responsibility of making decisions in their Departments and, if they do not do that well enough, another Minister should be found. It is helpful to listen to the business world and the outside world generally about what deregulatory measures could properly be introduced.
	I also think—this is partly an answer to the right hon. Gentleman—that the need for sunset clauses in legislation made by order is a prerequisite for good regulation. We should not have regulations that simply carry on, year after year, long after the original need has been removed but remain on the statute book, applying burdens to people in business that they could well do without. As one of the few Members who has run a small business, I know of what I speak, and I feel that that is a necessary protection for businesses.
	Amendment (a) would apply the test of reasonableness to the decision that the Minister takes when determining whether he is acting in an appropriately deregulatory way. It is no good for Ministers to say, "We don't need the term 'reasonably'", because they use it in another part of the Bill—not, of course, applying to Ministers, but to members of the public who may wish to make a complaint about the way in which Ministers behave. Let us not argue about whether the word "reasonably" is otiose but simply consider whether it adds to Ministers' responsibilities, and I say that it does. I do not want to make a Minister's decision justiciable in that sense, because I do not want decisions of parliamentary procedure to become a matter for the courts, but I want Ministers to behave appropriately in making that decision, and the insertion of the word "reasonably" would have that effect.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will speak to his amendment (b), but, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it is self-evidently a necessary protection. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider it. He seemed to dismiss it earlier, but if he thinks about it further, he will realise that it is a sensible change that would not reduce the Bill's effectiveness but simply define it more accurately.
	I do not propose to talk about amendments (d) and (e) today, for the simple reason that they also relate to new clause 15, which leads a group of amendments tomorrow, and I can explain the purpose for which they were tabled at that point. We have a slightly confused process. Nor do I need to dwell on amendment No. 4, which relates to the definition of reforming. The reformulation of the Bill means that we will have to return to that in another place. At the time when we tabled the amendment, it was crucial, but it is less crucial in the context of the Minister's new clauses.
	Amendment No. 74 also inserts the word "reasonably", but this time in clause 3, which covers the preconditions that a Minister must apply. Again, I hope that a Minister would behave reasonably. He would be required to do so under administrative law because otherwise he would be subject to judicial review, but I do not want to be in the business of encouraging the judicial review of Ministers' decisions in terms of how they present matters before the House. That is not the right way of doing business. We should make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about an assertion—to use a term that I used earlier—by a Minister or a subjective view. A Minister should have to test objectively whether he is behaving reasonably when applying those preconditions and accepting whether they have been met. That seems sensible.
	The last amendment that I wish to mention is amendment No. 78, which deals with something that has not been mentioned yet. It is a probing amendment on clause 34, which comes right at the end of the Bill and relates to its extent. When I asked the Minister's predecessor in Committee, he did not appear to have a clue why the clause was written in the way that it was. I do not want to cast aspersions on the previous Minister, but I can see why he had to be promoted, because he clearly did not understand this aspect of the Bill or many others. I want to know why the Bill asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction for itself. I am struggling to find the areas in which the orders that might be amended, repealed or replaced might apply outside England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Under what circumstances would that apply and under what circumstances would it be appropriate for the House to fast-track an amendment to legislation, which, for one reason or another, applied presumably to a Crown dependency? There are very rare occasions on which we have extraterritorial jurisdiction, for instance in relation to some sexual offences. I simply want the Minister to explain why he thinks that that has to be in the Bill. I did not get an explanation in Committee, so I hope that I will now.
	I feel strongly about amendment (a), because it is the litmus test of whether Ministers are serious about rewriting the Bill. I hope to have the opportunity to test that in the House, given that the Bill has been completely rewritten. We are virtually back to the Committee stage with this part of the Bill, so I hope that we will have the opportunity to test the will of the House on that. I also hope that, unless the hon. Member for Christchurch gets a satisfactory answer, he will feel able to press amendment (b). If he does, we will support it.
	I know that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will wish to speak on new clause 17. It is axiomatic that, if a matter is dealt with through this procedure in order for a deregulatory measure to go forward, it should not be overridden by the European Communities Act 1972 and provision elsewhere. If the principles of subsidiarity are to mean anything, they must mean that. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply that that is already the case, but I fear that he may not. If he does not, and the hon. Gentleman intends to press new clause 17, I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support him.

Mark Fisher: The Government have got into a terrible mess with the Bill, so it is good to know that the new Minister in charge of it is doing his best to dig them out of it. When the Minister's predecessor presented the Bill, he did so as if it had a different title and was called simply the "Regulatory Reform Bill". I do not think that he mentioned the word "legislation" in his Second Reading speech. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have been frustrated by and tangled in the mess of regulation that has accumulated due to legislation over the years, the Bill was waved through on Second Reading—the House did not even divide. The Bill was totally misrepresented and thought of as uncontentious.

John Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman checks the speeches, he will find that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen and I made it clear that the Bill was a constitutional outrage, but that we would not divide on it until Third Reading in the hope that the Government would see the error of their ways.

Mark Fisher: The criticism was muted. My perception of the Bill's history is that it was not until a few days after Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) wrote a staunch article in  The Guardian—[Hon. Members: " The Times."] I am so sorry . It was only when the hon. Gentleman dubbed the Bill the "Abolition of Parliament Bill" in his article that people started to recognise that it had many dangers and, indeed, the purpose suggested by its title: the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It was seen that the Bill was extremely dangerous, so I am glad that many, although by no means all, the dangers associated with the legislative aspect of the Bill are being put right by new clause 19.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman really must read the  Hansard report of the Second Reading debate. Both my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I made it clear that we would under no circumstances accept the Bill in the form in which it was presented to the House.

Mark Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his interpretation of his speech, but my interpretation of the debate was that the House took its eye off the legislative ball and waved through a Bill that was not in the interests of Parliament.

Andrew Miller: Unfortunately, I was not present on Second Reading because I was attending a funeral, as is recorded in  Hansard. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the criticisms that he and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) have made about the Bill are set out in my Committee's report, which was published before the Second Reading debate?

Mark Fisher: I certainly do not want to fall out with my hon. Friend. However, the attention of the House was not focused on the acute dangers of the Bill. If the Bill had gone through in the form in which it was considered on Second Reading, it could, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, have taken away all the powers of Parliament, but the outrage that the House should have felt about that was not expressed. Hon. Members might say, with a certain amount of casuistry, "Oh, but I spotted it and gave warnings," but those warnings were muffled. In its original form, the Bill was a parliamentary disgrace, so it is good that the Minister has recognised that and is rowing us back from that disastrous position. Sadly, his predecessor did not fully appreciate how serious the situation was.

Oliver Heald: rose—

Mark Fisher: I feel that the hon. Gentleman will be yet another person who will say, "Oh, but I understood the Bill only too well," but I will give way to him.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman should have been here on Second Reading, because many people, especially Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, spoke out strongly against the Bill. They made it clear that we were considering an issue of constitutional importance and that changes would have to be made to the Bill. However, we did want a Bill on deregulation, and we are still fighting for that because, my goodness, this country needs one.

Mark Fisher: There is the problem. Everyone wanted a Bill on deregulation. What they were given was a Bill that went very much wider than that, and did so in dangerous ways. Everyone is now alert to those problems. I have to confess that I did not attend the debate on Second Reading.

Andrew Miller: Guilty as charged.

Mark Fisher: Absolutely. I am ashamed of myself. As someone who believes in, and who has based most of my career in the House on, the principle of defending Parliament against the Executive and defending the scrutiny of Parliament, I am thoroughly ashamed that I did not spot the dangers. Other hon. Members seem less keen to admit that they slipped up too. One of the few people who comes out of this at all well is the hon. Member for Cambridge, but others may wish to protect their reputations.
	That is not the burden of my speech. Instead, it is the extent to which the Government are rowing back from that disastrous position with new clause 19. It is a good and serious attempt, but it is not quite right. It needs to be buttoned down in a solid way. The dangers inherent in the original Bill were enormous and complacency still exists, with hon. Members in some interventions saying, "I spotted it all." The original Bill gave powers to Ministers to subvert the process and bypass the whole of Parliament. The "abolition of Parliament" was not a loose phrase. We could have packed up and gone home with the removal of almost all our functions, yet neither the press nor the House was up in arms in the way that they should have been. I am delighted that the Government are rowing back with new clause 19, but it is not quite enough.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman have a view on why the Government introduced the Bill in the way that they did? Was it just a mistake by civil servants or something more sinister?

Mark Fisher: It is not for me to speculate on why and I am not sure that it is interesting now. Hon. Members, and there are plenty on both sides of the Chamber today, have been concerned about how the shift of power in politics has moved from Parliament to the Executive over recent years. Indeed, the former right hon. Member for Bexley and Old Sidcup, in his last speech on the Conservative Benches, said that it had been moving inexorably during the 50 years that he had been a Member of the House. Those of us in the group Parliament First, who are interested in such matters, recognise that the balance of power has shifted enormously. The Bill seemed to be the most dramatic and horrific example of that. Had it gone through unamended, it would have totally changed the balance and nature of our parliamentary system. Indeed, it would have neutered large parts of it.
	New clause 19 is important because it is the one hand against that trend. I congratulate the Minister on introducing it and ensuring that the Bill has some constraint. In the light of the generous number of interventions that he took, I hope that he will go back and think about some of them, and see that there are still weaknesses. I do not feel that he responded fully to the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made on the climate change levy. He deflected it by saying, "Ah, but legislation is covered by clause 5." However, it is only covered in one direction—to "impose or increase taxation." The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested the possibility that orders could reduce or delete taxation. The Bill, with the current wording, does nothing to stop an order being made. It would have to go to a Select Committee, but a Select Committee of a different House, with a different Chair and a different balance could well wave it through. It could be persuaded that a climate change levy was a thoroughly malign thing. That would not be good for Parliament. It would be extremely bad for the way in which we conduct our business.
	I suspect that the same is true of a future Government deleting the top rate of tax. That could happen and it could bypass the scrutiny of a Finance Bill. It is certainly true of the rather less important and frivolous example of fox hunting. I deplore the fact that the House has wasted 700 hours debating fox hunting. Anything more pointless and more to the shame of this House could hardly be imagined. Under this Bill, an order to delete all that legislation—if the order got through a Select Committee—would not need to go before the House; it could be a ministerial order. As a member of the middle way group who voted against the legislation, I would be happy and relaxed about that, but that is not the intention behind the Bill or the way in which we should conduct parliamentary business. I do not see anything in new clause 19(3), which defines the burdens, to prevent such things from happening. I know that the Minister intends that subsection (3) will preclude all those things, but that is not apparent from the wording. It would be very much simpler if the Bill were confined solely to regulation. Does the Minister want to intervene?

Patrick McFadden: indicated dissent.

Mark Fisher: There was an air of expectancy that my hon. Friend was about to rise to his feet.
	We still have a way to go to pin down and limit the effect of the Bill simply to tidying up and cleaning up the mess of regulation in our legislative system. We must by all means, either in this House or in another place, ensure that the Bill can in no way touch primary legislation, because that way lies perdition.

Kenneth Clarke: May I begin as everybody else will begin by praising the policy intention behind the Bill? I very much doubt whether there is any right hon. or hon. Member, either present or elected to this House, who does not support the principle of deregulation. We all acknowledge the tremendous pressure that we are under to reverse the inexorable growth of regulation in recent years and the constant reminder we are given by British business about its damaging effects on our competitiveness, so this ought to be a non-controversial Bill. It is a minor miracle that the Government have succeeded in turning it into an extremely controversial piece of legislation. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) that there is no point in going back now, but I cannot understand why the Government thought that they could carry general support for deregulation into support for a Bill of the kind that they first drafted.
	New clause 19 is indeed extremely welcome. It is the first time that the Government have moved substantially from where they started. The original Bill was drafted in an extraordinary fashion; parliamentary procedure would have been bypassed on every kind of occasion if a Government were minded to do so. New clause 19 has sought to narrow that, but it still has not gone far enough. The Government are still not inclined to restrict their scope sufficiently to reassure me that there is not the danger, perhaps a few years hence, that the provision will be misused and in a way that would further erode the power of this Parliament to check the activities of the Executive. In the light of recent history, that is something of which we in this House should always be conscious.
	The best point made by the new Minister, whom I welcome to his post and who did his best to get back to common sense on deregulation, was that there is a danger that we will all be so sensitive about parliamentary procedure that we will become extremely pedantic and Governments will again find that their deregulatory legislation is quite inadequate for anything except making such minor changes as to be of no consequence to anyone. I tell myself—and I hope that everybody else will in this debate—that one must guard against that before looking at new clause 19 and saying that it is not adequate. However, I have done that and I still think that whoever produced the new clause has been too cautious.
	Proposed subsection (3) leaves open the possibility of the repeal of any kind of taxation in response to demands from pressure groups and commercial lobbies. Procedures made illegal by the criminal law could be legalised, and debate prevented by the fast-track procedure. I cited the example of the repeal of the climate change levy, because I thought that the proposal might attract the Minister's interest. Conservative Members support that repeal— presumably, he is not favour of that—and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Government from introducing it. The Bill could be used to provide an exemption to value added tax on goods or services in response to a well publicised and financed commercial lobby. VAT has become nonsense because so many exemptions have been allowed over the years for political purposes. Plenty of people would argue that their goods or services are so desirable that an exemption is the obvious thing to provide. It would be easier to give way to them, if any Government are so minded, by using the legislation. Airport passenger tax, insurance duty and all kinds of unpopular measures could be repealed under the legislation, subject only to the consultation and the veto of the Select Committee on which the Minister relies as protections.

William Cash: I am not sure that I intend to make an offer to my right hon. and learned Friend, but the very fact that VAT and other measures that he cited derive from European legislation means that they cannot be touched by the Bill. I may be able to elaborate more when I speak to new clause 17.

Kenneth Clarke: Our debate has touched on new clause 17, but I cannot begin to understand it. Having heard reference to it, I look forward to my hon. Friend's explanation of what it is supposed to do. If it merely restates the existing or original law, I shall not be upset, but I do not think that it intends to do so. I believe that my hon. Friend is trying to insert a subtle provision to allow all our treaty obligations to be ignored, provided that procedures under the Bill are followed. That would encourage any Government of whom he wholly approved to make frequent use of the measure if they ever assumed office. However, let us wait for his explanation.
	Turning to the criminal law, I have suggested that the procedure could be used to end the illegality of fox hunting. Most of the great liberal reforms abolishing criminal penalties have been introduced by the House, but some people advocate the introduction of things that they regard as liberal reforms. I do not approve of euthanasia or assisted suicide, but the criminal penalty on that act could be lifted under the Bill, subject only to the safeguards on which the Minister relies. He disappoints me by repeating the arguments deployed by his predecessor in response to such examples. He accepts that the Bill as drafted would allow anyone to repeal such penalties, but he says that the Government do not envisage doing so. He says that it is not realistic to expect anyone to do so in future.

Patrick McFadden: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I shall give way to the Minister, as I do not think that that can be accepted as an adequate argument on the plain legal effects of a piece of the legislation that the Government have passed and which would give future Governments explicit powers.

Patrick McFadden: I am not asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any other Member to rely purely on my personal assurance in the case of the emotive examples that he has just cited. May I direct him to clause 3, which deals with the protections, rights and freedoms that would clearly be infringed by those examples? It is not my personal assurance that provides a guarantee against such measures being taken by a future Government—it is the Bill.

Kenneth Clarke: I do not see—perhaps in the reply an attempt will be made to persuade me to see—that clause 3 answers my arguments on taxation or the criminal law in the slightest. Of course they could be put forward, and they would have the effect of lifting the criminal penalty from a particular category of people, or lifting the financial burden from another category of people, but it would be difficult to say that that automatically restricted the freedoms of others. It might deeply offend the sensibilities or the interests of others, but not their freedoms, so clause 3 is not an answer.
	If the Minister wants to give a specific answer, let him deal with my example of taxation. I have not heard him yet explain why clause 5, which could deal with the point, could not be amended to include any reduction in taxation. If my point about changing taxation is so preposterous, why does the wording of the Bill leave it open to allow the change in the burden of taxation? Why does clause 5 not include reductions in taxation, so that lobbies cannot try and persuade a Government to use the power?
	That goes back to a point that I made not on the Floor of the House, but in a private debate with the Minister's predecessor in the precincts of the Palace organised by the Hansard Society. There would never have been any difficulty with the Bill if all the things that Ministers have been prepared to say as assertions, promises and beliefs in principle had been incorporated into the text. If Governments are accepting various scenarios, why do they not bring them fully into the text?
	I move on to the safeguards to which the Minister keeps coming back: all these things require consultation, and all would fail if the two Select Committees, or the relevant Select Committee, were prepared to exercise a veto. That is not good enough. That could be used to take away the powers of Parliament on practically every subject. If we could all be reassured by that, why on earth are we spending our time debating anything on the Floor of the House?
	There are occasions when debate on the Floor of the House is needed, not always because the majority is opposed to some prospect, but to protect the rights of minorities as well. I have taken part in protracted debates on the Floor of the House where I have been in the large majority in the House. We have known that we would get our legislation and I have known that I would be voting on the winning side, but that does not mean that I thought it was an irritating waste of time to allow a powerful section of public opinion to voice its objections, to test the detail and to go through the arguments. That is the whole point of Parliament. It must never be regarded as just a nuisance that stands in the way of the parliamentary majority for the time being getting its way.
	What about the protections about which we are told? I regret to say that I do not think that the veto by a Select Committee is good enough. The two Select Committees that have studied the Bill have done a very good job. Select Committees do a very good job in the House, but I would not rely upon them as the last defenders of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary process in every case. It is a fact that the Government determine the majority of every Select Committee. A Government determined to get their way, who are irritated by what they see as time-wasting and filibustering opposition, will ensure that Select Committees do not veto their legislation and get it back on to the Floor of the House.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to strengthen the Select Committees, an absolute veto is required, so that they can say, "We don't like the look of this order for this process"? A veto such as the one suggested, which we shall debate later and which is so hedged round with restrictions, does not give much confidence in the process.

Kenneth Clarke: I agree entirely. I am glad to know that when we return to the matter, my hon. Friend will press those points strongly, because he is right.
	In expressing my reservations still, in spite of the need for as flexible a deregulatory measure as possible, let me make it clear to the Minister that I do not fear that we will suddenly go to extreme government. I realise that some of the examples that have been cited by opponents, including the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) in his article, were fairly preposterous in the context of today's politicians. Those examples would never happen. We no longer need to argue whether the right to jury trial would be taken away. There are those in the Government who would like to take it away in a wide range of cases, but in the modern state that is today's Britain, they would never have dared to suggest that that should be done without any proper parliamentary process.
	As I have said, I do not think that we are going straight away to extreme government. However, over 50 years we have seen a steady nibbling at the edges of the parliamentary process. Those of us who have been in this place for any length of time have seen a considerable nibble, almost always for the best of intentions in the mind of the Government of the time. I fear that for this Government, and perhaps for future Administrations for all I know, the pressure on the parliamentary timetable leads them to look for short cuts. I am not reassured by the Minister for the Cabinet Office—recently the Government Chief Whip—who is now in charge of the Bill. To get vast amounts of legislation through the House, the time made available for debate on any particular measure has been confined as never before.
	We can hear the arguments already when the first of the proposed changes in legislation or in the criminal law comes up. We shall hear: "We have a mandate. We have just fought the election. The opinion polls are wholly in favour of what we propose. The people who are obstructing the process are unrepresentative. They are an irritating minority." Already, time and again, the Government keep making proposals, at present about the procedures of the upper House. Those proposals are designed to stop the time-wasting, the day-by-day discussion, which irritates the Government because it delays their ability to get their way. Secondly, it reduces the amount of legislation that they can introduce, and holds up other measures on Report.

Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: I was about to resume my place. I shall give way briefly.

Richard Shepherd: I am extremely grateful.
	I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is being a little too sanguine about the nature of the House. We have experienced landslide Governments in recent years. The optimism and enthusiasm of an incoming Government with a large majority does not weigh with the proposition that my right hon. and learned Friend is raising. They are enthusiastic and determined.

Kenneth Clarke: I agree.
	The newly elected Member of the victorious party cannot understand why the entire process has to be gone through to deliver the brave new world that he or she has just been elected upon. It requires a few years in Opposition to have a civilising effect on any Member of this place.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is absolutely right. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that the Government are not justified in seeking to argue for new clause 19, at least in part, on the basis of what he describes as the pressures of the parliamentary timetable, as though they were some independent variable with which Ministers have to reckon. Does he accept that the pressures of the parliamentary timetable are substantially the result of the insatiable legislative appetite of the Government of the day?

Kenneth Clarke: Yes. This place has turned into a legislative sausage machine, and the quality of legislation has declined as a result. That is partly because there is no proper time for parliamentary discussion.

Robert Smith: Is there not an important lesson in a debate about deregulation and a debate about the effect of legislation on business? A failure to scrutinise legislation effectively in this place and an ability to rush legislation through are why business is facing such a burden of regulation.

Kenneth Clarke: Yes. I agree entirely. That is plainly the case.

David Heath: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Kenneth Clarke: I will give way for one last time.

David Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being very generous. I, too, must accuse him of being a little too sanguine. He said that the Government would never use a procedure for nibbling away at jury trials. They have used Order in Council procedure to do just that in the context of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They have used Orders in Council to remove the requirement for prima facie evidence for extradition to the United States. That is precisely the way in which the Government work. That is usually on the pretext of fighting terrorism or rebalancing, whatever that might mean.

Kenneth Clarke: I accept the rebuke. I was going to end by saying that although I do not think that we are going for extreme government—I do not think that we are likely rapidly to see unlikely things happen—we have seen some unlikely things happen. During the past three or four years I have seen processes on the Floor of the House that I would not have believed could take place had I been challenged 10 years ago to say that such things might happen. The Minister dealing with the Bill on anti-terrorist measures calmly announced on Report that he was abandoning its previous wording—that he was going to alter it all in the House of Lords. We spent the timetabled three hours—the entire Report stage—discussing the text of a letter that had accidentally been leaked, and which had given the House some inkling of what that Bill was eventually going to be like. That was, so far, the occasion on which the Government have most clearly demonstrated their extreme contempt for the processes of this House when political pressures are upon them.
	Although such dangers might not be imminent on all fronts, they are very real. That is why, although what has been achieved so far is very welcome, it is most definitely not enough. I hope that the Government will accept some of the amendments being pressed on them today, and that this House and the other place will continue in their efforts to ensure that the wording eventually reflects the intention behind the Bill, and that it ties this Government down to that intention only.

John Redwood: It is a great pity that so far in this debate on this important new clause, we have had from Government Members and the Liberal Democrats not a single example of a deregulatory measure that could be deployed under this power, with the single exception of game licences. Although I am very happy to welcome that one, it is not going to change the world a great deal. One would have expected the Government, when constructing this legislation over many months, to have in mind many examples of how they wished to use this power—to be limited a bit under new clause 19—and why it was reasonable in the light of what they wish to do.
	I want the Government to succeed at deregulation. It is a bit like suggesting that a tiger should become a vegetarian, but one lives in hope that the Government believe that deregulation is necessary and wish to do it. However, it would have been so much easier to have done it in the way that we proposed in a debate before the last election in this very House. We gave the Government 63 items for deregulation, including some very big ones, which were also given in writing to the Minister's predecessor. The Government said that a parliamentary debate somehow did not count as a way of expressing our views on this matter, so I followed it up with a letter to the Department, thereby enabling officials to see that list of items for themselves. We said that that list should form the content of a deregulation Bill.
	The fact that we are yet again having a longish debate about the constitutional implications of this Bill, just as we did on Second Reading and in Committee, shows that it is not a very good way of achieving the desired objective. Given that the leading Opposition party is more in favour of deregulation than are the Government, if they had introduced a proper deregulation Bill full of good ideas, it would probably have gone through much more quickly than the constitutional outrage before us on Second Reading, or the rather more limited constitutional outrage before us today.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) is a Member whom I normally respect and praise. He is very good at defending the virtues of this House and its liberties, but he should have taken the precaution of attending Second Reading or reading the  Hansard report of it. Had he done so, he would have realised that I and my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) made it very clear that the substantial and wide-ranging powers taken in the first draft of the Bill presented to this House were unacceptable. They allowed Ministers to regulate and legislate without going through the normal parliamentary processes. They enabled a major bypass of constitutional practice by effectively allowing primary legislation to be made by Ministers with very little reference to the House of Commons, in a regulatory, as well as deregulatory, direction.
	We are now told that new clause 19 will limit these wide-ranging powers to legislating in a deregulatory direction. As someone who desperately wants more deregulation, I say one cheer for that. But as someone who strongly believes that Parliament has a right to debate all such matters properly, I share the concern of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and others that there are still too many powers inherent in new clause 19. It would still give Ministers wide-ranging powers to do things that would be better done in the open.
	When I advised a former Government with a very large majority and a strong sense of political direction on privatisation, we had a choice. We could have said, "Let's take one piece of legislation to the House of Commons to give us an overall power to privatise anything we wish", and then do it by order-making, industry by industry; or we could have done it by primary legislation, industry by industry. I advised—I think that the Cabinet was of the same view anyway—that it should be done industry by industry with separate pieces of legislation in each case. That meant far more effort and difficulty for the Ministers concerned, but it was the right and democratic thing to do. As those major nationalisations had been put in place by separate pieces of legislation, industry by industry, we thought that they should be undone industry by industry, with much more lengthy and bruising debates in the House of Commons. It is extraordinary that the Government can still think it right, despite the change of heart represented by new clause 19, to propose deregulatory measures that take the form of removing pieces of primary legislation that have been passed by this House without going through the reverse process that would be expected.
	Why should not we have not only an annual Finance Bill but an annual deregulation Bill? Indeed, the House might discuss and vote on the proposition that there should be a combined finance and deregulation Bill every year. It would be wonderful if the Treasury learned the habit of deregulation and legislated for its tax revenues in a deregulatory way instead of the very regulatory way that it does under this Government year after year, with hundreds of pages of new and complex provisions for old taxes as well as new ones. We could then have deregulatory budgets, Department by Department, so that each year a Department would know that there was a piece of legislation that it could use to fulfil the requirement to cut the regulatory burden it was imposing.
	Alternatively, the Government could achieve their deregulatory aims by ensuring that each major departmental piece of legislation had an additional deregulatory section. We hoped that that was what the Prime Minister had in mind when he told us, in respect of regulations, that it would be a case of one in, one out. We hoped that each piece of regulating legislation would therefore contain a complementary deregulatory section so that we could be assured that the overall burden was not going up. But the Government never do that. They do not take advantage of the many legislative vehicles trundling through this House of Commons year after year, usually covering each of the main Departments in turn, by including them in their deregulatory ambitions. Today, we are again left with a truncated and guillotined debate on big changes in constitutional practice.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I welcome new clause 19 compared with the original measure. I will not be churlish enough to vote against it, because it is moving in the right direction and I welcome it in preference to having nothing in its place. However, I urge the Government to think again about how serious they are about deregulation and whether there is a better way of achieving it than using the very considerable powers that the Bill will grant the Government if it goes through without further major amendment.
	It is disturbing that we can have many long debates on deregulation without anything of a deregulatory nature being mentioned, apart from game licences, welcome though that is. Ministers still do not seem to understand that many colleagues on both sides of the House are very worried by this power for different reasons—not only those who fear that the Government may deregulate something that they think is good regulation, but those of us who are strongly in favour of far more deregulation than the Government have in mind but would like it to be done properly by the front door instead of improperly by the back door.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I find ourselves placed in a dilemma that is not of our choosing. We will not vote against new clause 19, but nor do we welcome this legislation. We welcome its intent, but we do not believe that the Government are really serious about it. If they were, they would by now have had their long lists of items that they were going to deregulate. We are left with the paradox that we may have a Bill that does not deregulate very much, but leaves on the statute book some worrying powers for future Ministers.

Andrew Miller: I shall not be so churlish as to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he did not do this as a Minister. Recommendation 2 of the report by my Committee, the Regulatory Reform Committee, states:
	"We reaffirm the recommendation of our predecessor Committee that Departments should be assessed on their progress in removing unnecessary regulations and controls and not simply on their progress in simplifying matters."
	Does he agree with that?

John Redwood: I seem to remember that in the '80s the Government undertook a lot of deregulation and liberalisation that greatly benefited whole sectors of industry such as telecoms, in which I was privileged to be involved as Minister.
	Yes, I do agree with the recommendation by the hon. Gentleman's Committee. I praise him for him for its work and for being one of the many voices that drew attention to the problems involved in the Bill.

Oliver Heald: I imagine that my right hon. Friend is aware that amendments that we tabled in Committee, and now new clause 2, would require a regular report on progress.

John Redwood: I agree. Of course, it was a Conservative recommendation from before the last election that every Department should have a regulatory budget. Under Conservative control, those budgets would be reduced year after year across all Departments as a whole, and if one Department needed or wished to increase its regulatory burden, it would have to find other Departments that would take a proportionate cut so that the overall burden did not go up. One would need an annual deregulatory Bill to go through to implement that.

Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend says that he will vote for new clause 19. Would it not be more cautious to say that that is dependent upon acceptance of the qualifying amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d), so that the vote is conditional? That is what I would urge on him and on my party.

John Redwood: I, too, would like those amendments to be carried. However, I think that I said that it would be churlish to vote against new clause 19 and left open the position on how far we would get in amending it and whether we wanted to increase the Government's possible majority.
	Finally, I turn to the amendments on the European issue tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Nowadays, so much of our regulation comes from Brussels that we cannot exempt that from scrutiny and from our deregulatory urge. New clause 17 makes a good attempt to draw the House's attention to that and to make Ministers understand that they cannot have a deregulation policy worth anything unless they are prepared to tackle quite a number of the regulatory burdens coming from Brussels. That would preferably be through renegotiation of those individual items, but it would be good to have a legislative back-up to make it crystal clear that if this House wishes to deregulate something, that should be law made here in the United Kingdom.

William Cash: I am glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in his remarks. I, too, have reservations about the principal objective of this Bill, which is to have a fast-track procedure for dealing with matters that is very far-reaching even with the changes proposed in new clause 19, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and other hon. Members have said. The fact is that this is a very invasive Bill. No doubt we shall wait to see what happens on Third Reading, when all our other debates have been concluded.
	In an earlier intervention, I said that there was a vast omission—indeed, a black hole—in the proposal before us, which has been dressed up and presented as a deregulatory measure to reduce the burdens on business. That raises some practical questions. I am delighted to say that some six weeks ago, 50 of my right hon. and hon. Friends put their names to my amendments, which would ensure that we got the clarification in our own law that would enable us, where necessary and after appropriate negotiations—it would be done in a responsible and prudential fashion—to insist that we should deregulate on our own terms at Westminster and make it law in this country, binding on the judiciary and overriding the requirements of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 in that regard. Having spoken to senior advisers in the House, I understand that this is the first time that an amendment of this significance has been selected for debate since 1972. There was an attempt, during the passage of the 1972 Act, to table an amendment that proposed that nothing in the Act should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.
	Some of us will recall the Single European Act that was passed in 1986. I tabled a similar amendment to that legislation. It was on the Order Paper, and my name remained in splendid isolation until I walked into the Lobby on the afternoon of the debate, where a certain very distinguished parliamentarian came up to me and said, in his inimitable fashion, "I think you will be interested to see that I have put my name to your amendment." Of course, it was none other than the right hon. Enoch Powell. He perfectly understood the object of the exercise.
	Despite the best efforts of the European Scrutiny Committee and the European Standing Committees, the present volume of European legislation, and the fast-track procedures that are used to introduce that legislation into the House, are such that the accusations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe about the reduction—and, some would say, the redaction—of our legislation within the procedures set out in our Standing Orders could easily be explained in terms of the European legislation that we have to accept under section 2 of the European Communities Act. That legislation receives scrutiny, but if anyone ever attempts to do anything about it by voting against a particular provision in a European Standing Committee, the House immediately reverses the decision. Many people, including me, regard those procedures as a waste of parliamentary opportunity.

David Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman think it wise that this country should breach the principle of the supremacy of Community law, which is what his amendment would appear to seek to achieve, by means of a statutory instrument and not of a Bill?

William Cash: That would be a valid point, were it not for the fact that the only way in which it is possible to assert the legislative supremacy of this House is under, and by virtue of, primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he probably anticipated my saying that. In my legal opinion, it would be impossible to seek to override section 2 of the European Communities Act merely by order. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the mechanism that I have employed in my new clause has been before parliamentary counsel and cleared for this purpose. It says
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972",
	and refers to any order repealing, amending or replacing other legislation that has been introduced under section 2 and is therefore binding on this Parliament only by virtue of the 1972 Act. We could not change that by order, but if the authority were given by primary legislation, using the words
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972",
	that would attract the legislative supremacy of the primary legislation that the Bill before us would then provide. At that point, the provision would have effect with regard to the fast-track procedure, notwithstanding my concerns about the fast-track procedure in principle, which will no doubt be resolved on Third Reading.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. The only procedure available under the Bill is the statutory instrument, which does not receive sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. That is why many of us have objected to the Bill over the past few months. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to use a regulatory reform order, which would not receive sufficient scrutiny, to violate the principle of Community law supremacy. That would be an extraordinary thing to do, diplomatically.

William Cash: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added the word "diplomatically" Ultimately, this is a matter not only of grave constitutional importance but of political significance. I would say it was more political than diplomatic, but it is a matter of great importance, for all the reasons that I shall outline.

John Redwood: The ill-judged intervention by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who clearly does not understand the important point that my hon. Friend is making, shows that the Lib Dems are craven and slavish on European matters. They want our regulations to come from Brussels, and they do not want this House to be able to influence or change them.

William Cash: I do not want to antagonise the Liberal Democrats too much. I am not in the business of laying traps for people, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he was minded to support my new clause, and I hope that he will stand good on that when we go into the Lobby.
	Important questions arise that are not merely of an abstract nature. The House has a long history in this regard. Those who have studied constitutional law will remember Henry VIII and the Statute of Proclamations, the great Edward Coke, the achievement of the legislative supremacy of Parliament in 1688, following the final denouement of the Stuarts' attempts to insist on the divine right of kings at the expense of the people of this country, and the assertion in the Bill of Rights in that year that decisions would be made by Parliament and not by the monarchy. Those issues are not dissimilar to the questions that arise in the context of the European Communities Act 1972.

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

William Cash: I thought that that might get a rise out of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Kenneth Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that any of those great measures should be set aside by statutory instrument, subject to the veto of two Select Committees. He is helping the arguments of those who think that the Government have not gone far enough. The Government say that no politician would conceive of abolishing a tax or a criminal offence by statutory instrument, yet my hon. Friend is advocating the repudiation of our treaty obligations—and, effectively, our leaving the European Union—by a parliamentary process that would allow those of us who are pro-European merely the opportunity to object to a statutory instrument, or to get a Select Committee to block it.

William Cash: I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend has now entered into the debate with gusto. I had hoped that I might be called to speak before him, so that he could have engaged in a series of interventions on me. I am afraid that the issues that he raises do not add up.
	Since 1972, we have been subjected to a constant stream of legislation that has been brought in by prerogative. Let us take the Maastricht treaty as an example, or the treaties of Nice or Amsterdam. I do not need to weary the House with the vast amount of legislation of that kind that has gone through this House, actively encouraged by my right hon. and learned Friend. Much of it has been resisted by popular sentiment, even though not everyone has understood every jot and tittle of it. My right hon. and learned Friend himself said that he found it difficult, to use the words of new clause 19,
	"for example, where the legislation is hard to understand".
	With regard to the population at large, the same applies to much of the European legislation, which is regularly visited on them by virtue of the extremely truncated, undemocratic and unaccountable methods employed through the European treaties and the mechanisms of the House. Ultimately, those lead to legislation going through effectively because we are told that the European Communities Act is inviolable, cannot be touched and is in concrete, that there is an acquis communautaire, that we should forget about any changes, and that the constant stream of European integration must therefore continue. Well, I have news for my right hon. and learned Friend—this is a moment when we say no.

Andrew Turner: Is not my hon. Friend being a little incautious in his advocacy of this altogether welcome new clause? The manner in which he is proposing it and dealing with interventions not only from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) but from the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is widening the gulf between those who are in favour of the new clause and those who are against it, rather than bringing together those who have some concerns with those who are in favour of the new clause. When the hon. Member for Cambridge says that the supposed supremacy of European law is being set aside by a mere order, it is not an order that is doing that but this new clause. My hon. Friend was wrong to agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge on that.

William Cash: With respect, my hon. Friend might consider that matter again. The mechanism to enable the constitutional procedure to have the effect that I desire is contained in the new clause. I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) understood that. We need the backing of primary legislation, using the magic words,
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972",
	and then referring to the fact that it shall be binding in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom. That provides the mechanism whereby the judiciary are under a duty to give effect to that latest Act of Parliament.
	Before I move on to the question whether legislative supremacy is a principle to which we still adhere, I want to deal first with why, from a practical point of view, I regard it as extremely important that we understand how invasive the burdens have been in relation to the business community, industry, competitiveness and enterprise. Leaving aside the system that I have employed to achieve my results, that is my main point. For example, a short time ago, the British Chambers of Commerce produced figures showing the accumulated cost of burdens that arose in respect of a number of regulations. It did not, however, demonstrate that the top six—the most burdensome and most costly ones—were all of European origin, of which I could give several examples. The total cost, from the moment that the burdens were introduced to the moment that the figures were published, came to £25 billion. The regulations concerned included the working time regulations, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Employment Act 2002 and so on.
	In addition, Sir David Arculus, the Government-appointed chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, estimated the cost to business of over-burdensome regulations—I stand to be corrected, as the figure seems extraordinarily high, but it is the one that he gave, as far as I can recollect—as £100 billion. No wonder the Government are looking for a way to deal with the problem. We can break down the European element of that, but we should also consider the percentage of legislation passed through the truncated, unaccountable, unattractive and undemocratic procedures in the House, which impose those expensive regulations on British business. Those regulations are then in concrete, and we can do nothing about them, whatever their merits. Once such regulations have been passed by a qualified majority vote, the legislation is imposed on us, and other member states might have a vested interest in not making changes that may be required.
	I take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, I do not want or intend to over-egg the pudding on this point. For me, this is essentially a practical question about the burdens on business and deregulation. It is not a foray into the abstractions of sovereignty; it is about the way in which the system works. It is a time check on reality. Are we going to allow this legislation to continue to invade our business community? The House should remember that I have always said that I am in favour of trade and political co-operation, and I voted for the Single European Act, notwithstanding my attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, for that reason. I wrote an article in  The Times for that purpose at the time. I foresaw that we might find ourselves saturated in unnecessary burdens and that we would need to relieve them in the interests of competition. It was therefore essential to have the mechanism to enable us to do that. Unfortunately, under the rules of the supremacy of Community law—the other law, in the parallel universe that exists in legislation—we are not allowed to have that mechanism, under the terms of the case law of the European Union. The hon. Member for Cambridge and I could go through all the case law, and I would agree with him that the position is clear under Community law.
	However, all that case law, every one of those burdens and every aspect of that European legislation depend on one thing only—the legislative supremacy of this House in passing the European Communities Act . As a consequence, it is open to our judiciary—as in the different context of the Human Rights Act 1998—to interpret and apply that law. That is solely, exclusively and entirely because of the European Communities Act passed by this House. If this House decides that it wishes to make changes, by whatever procedure, it is incumbent on the judiciary to give effect to that subsequent inconsistent law, provided it is express and unambiguous. That case law is laid down unequivocally by Lord Denning in the case of McCarthy's  v. Smith, by Lord Justice Laws in the case of the metric martyrs and by Lord Steyn himself in a lecture in 1996.
	There are so many misunderstandings about the role of the judiciary in these matters. So much confusion is created by invoking the principles of Community law when we are dealing with, and must continue to insist on, the principles of United Kingdom constitutional law. From the earliest days of the 17th century, in a constant movement towards the establishment of the democratic Parliament that we have today, that has been dependent on the fact that we legislate and the judges obey. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense; it is what the judges say of their own function.
	I mentioned Lord Steyn. He is well known as a distinguished lawyer, with—I would say—some influence, and with strong views about the European Community. We understand that he is enthusiastic about it. In a lecture that he gave in 1996, however, he made his opinion abundantly clear. He said
	"in countless decisions the courts have declared the unqualified supremacy of Parliament. There are no exceptions."

David Heath: It is always worth listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I agree entirely with his point about legislative supremacy in the context of the European Communities Act 1972, and, as he knows, I agree largely with what he says about the proper application of subsidiarity and excessive regulation. However, he has posed a conundrum to both the Liberal Democrats and his own Front Benchers, who in Committee supported new clause 7, which excluded the European Communities Act from consideration of the procedural device that the Government propose. We agreed that it was not a matter that should undergo the fast-track procedure. Now the hon. Gentleman is inviting us to place it squarely and centrally in the fast-track procedure. As I think he will recognise, that poses a great difficulty both to us and to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

William Cash: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but what I am trying to do is to invoke T.S. Eliot's famous observation that humankind finds it very difficult to deal with reality.

Oliver Heald: I think my hon. Friend will agree that using the order-making power to amend the European Communities Act 1972 might be a bit strong, even for him. Is not his point that, if a procedure allows us to change the law in this country and if there is a principle of sovereignty, it is open to our Parliament to use that procedure to change laws that affect our European Union treaty obligations? Of course, whether that is a good idea is a different question, and it is possible that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I would not make the same judgment as my hon. Friend. In terms of the sovereignty of Parliament, though, it must be right for us to be able to change laws that break EU treaty obligations. It is just that it is probably not a very good idea.

William Cash: My hon. Friend has put the case well from his point of view. Looking at the complexion of this Government, I should not have thought that there was a cat in hell's chance of their using the fast-track procedure in any way to affect the European legislation, but the case that I have made in respect of the burden on business is unanswerable, as is my observation that it is not included in the package. I do not expect the Government to take it up, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that if we are to be correct and accurate in regard to our constitutional position in UK law, and in the context of the legislative supremacy of Parliament, it is incumbent on us to recognise the issues and to recognise that, through a process of absorption, osmosis and camouflage, they have been overtaken. People have come to believe that everything is set in concrete. It is not, and that is part of the point of my new clause.

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is right, especially in one respect. The new clause demonstrates clearly to those who are persuaded by the reasons given for membership of the European Communities that they can be changed and irrevocably broken by a statutory instrument. That is what is wrong with the Bill.

William Cash: Indeed. It is undesirable that fast-track procedures should be regarded as the best way to go about things—we have been through the argument already, and we may well vote against that proposal on Third Reading—but it is important to establish and reassert a principle. We have not had many opportunities to do that in the context of a substantive Government Bill to which amendments can be tabled for purposes of clarity.
	Let me say this to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, a distinguished chairman of the Conservative party's democracy commission. It would not be good enough to assert—if he were to do so—that what I propose is not possible through the legislative supremacy of the House of Commons. He cannot avoid the fact that what I am saying is good constitutional law of the United Kingdom.

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is a long-standing opponent of section 2, in particular, of the European Communities Act. Surely it is open to any Government to introduce legislation to repeal that section, if they so wish. My hon. Friend and I would disagree on the desirability of such a measure, but a proper way of dealing with the issue would be to present primary legislation—which, I would hope, would be debated at the same length as the original legislation—on the Floor of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend is a great parliamentarian, and I cannot understand why he of all people should suggest that no more than the Bill and a statutory instrument should be employed to enact a drastic measure on which he and I will not reach speedy agreement.

William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend has made a political point. I have listened to what he has said, as I have on many other occasions.

David Heathcoat-Amory: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that new clause 17 could not be used to amend or repeal the 1972 Act, but could be used to make explicit that Parliament can change statutes notwithstanding the provisions of the Act? That is a rather unexceptional constitutional convention under which we all live. My hon. Friend's new clause is thus a modest measure that will certainly not lead to the vast constitutional revolution posited by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).

William Cash: My right hon. Friend has put it very well. The principle embodied in new clause 17 is the vital principle of preserving and reasserting, and the Bill has given me the opportunity to do that. Notwithstanding the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, which are primarily political, and those of the hon. Member for Cambridge, which appear to be primarily diplomatic, I insist on my point.

David Howarth: rose—

William Cash: I see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intrude again.

David Howarth: I merely wish to ask the hon. Gentleman what aspect of new clause 19 would prevent the repeal of the 1972 Act.

William Cash: The answer is simple. Without primary legislation, which new clause 17 would constitute—

David Howarth: I was talking about new clause 19.

William Cash: I am referring to new clause 17. If it were incorporated in the Bill, it would confer authority—on the basis of principles that I need not repeat—enabling the legislation to have the effect that I want: that is, where necessary to override the 1972 Act to reduce the burdens on business. I think that that point is well catered for.

Edward Miliband: I hesitate to intervene in this debate among what one might call the European trainspotters, but if I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, if the new clause were to be inserted, we would be able to override the principles of the 1972 Act. What does he think would follow in terms of our relationship with the European Union?

William Cash: Predictably, there would be enforcement proceedings, infraction proceedings and various other actions. Until very recently, my party had precisely such a policy in respect of the common fisheries policy, except that we had not spelled out the legal mechanism for doing that. We are perfectly happy to accept that, where matters of vital national interest are concerned, Europe does not necessarily get it right. In fact, the low growth and high unemployment, the riots in France, the problems implementing economic reforms that Angela Merkel is experiencing, the difficulties that Mr. de Villepin experienced, and so on—the list is endless—are all indications of the fact that the Lisbon agenda does not work—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a wide-ranging debate, but the hon. Gentleman is starting to range rather too wide.

William Cash: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love).

Andrew Love: I am forced to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's long oration. Has he discussed new clause 17 with his Front Benchers, and are they minded to support it should it be pressed to a Division?

William Cash: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a late entrant to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that hey will support new clause 17. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
	The basis of legislative supremacy is that the courts obey Acts of Parliament. You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to bring me back to that point, because that is the essential point that must be understood.
	"The rule of judicial obedience is in one sense a rule of common law...it is the ultimate political fact upon which the whole system of legislation hangs."
	Those are the words of Sir William Wade, one of the great constitutional authorities. I mentioned the judgments of Mr. Justice Edward Coke, which, relying on the sovereignty of Parliament, stated that the courts could void Acts of Parliament. We now have democracy, votes and general elections but, unfortunately, in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998, which I shall not dwell on, and the European Communities Act 1972, the judiciary have been trying to push the boundaries beyond the established legislative supremacy of Parliament, by drawing down a greater degree of supranationalism. They have even been saying that treaties have a special status. Neither treaties nor convention can stand in the way of legislation—of Acts of Parliament. All the judicial decisions given in the past several centuries have reasserted that main proposition. Ultimately, the judiciary derive their judicial authority from Parliament and, I should say, from the source of their payments, salaries and allowances.
	I mentioned the comments of Lord Steyn, who is by no means a person with whom one would easily disagree. In the case of Manuel  v. Attorney-General, Sir Robert Megarry stated unequivocally that
	"the duty of the court is to obey and apply every Act of Parliament"
	What is required to deal with the problem facing us of burdens of business is a clear and unambiguous statement in the Bill, for which the appropriate form of words is:
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972"
	Even the case of Factortame, which dealt with the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, ultimately depended on the passing of the European Communities Act 1972. In the words of Lord Bridge, Parliament's surrender of sovereignty in the 1972 Act was voluntary. What has been given can be taken away; that is the principle. It does not necessarily follow from my new clause that there would be a political decision and a vote in the House of Commons to do that, although I believe that we have gone far too far in European integration and that we need a substantial and radical retrenchment. Even the judgment of Lord Hope in the recent case of Jackson and others  v. Attorney-General ultimately depends on the 1972 Act. Mr. Justice Laws referred to "constitutional statutes", which were purported to be given an additional status over and above ordinary Acts of Parliament. In the context of the European legislation, they themselves would depend on the fact that Parliament had passed the necessary legislation.
	The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden), has it in mind that some gold-plating can be removed. However, where that gold-plating ultimately depends on the fundamental and intrinsic nature of the European directive or regulation on which it is based, merely removing it and all the Cabinet Office mechanisms that are employed, including regulatory impact assessments, transposition notes, and so on—complicated stuff that nobody in the small business community really knows exists—will be of no value at all if the fundamental issue is not tackled. In the democracy in which we live, the United Kingdom Parliament acquires its authority from the voters at general elections, which decide the Government. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) is correct: Parliament is first. The bottom line is that we have the right to be able to decide what legislation is to be passed.
	There are those, such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who—uncritically, I think—are willing to accept pretty well everything that comes from the European Union and do not want it to be amended or repealed. He would argue strongly, as he has today, that the mechanism that I propose is not to his liking. The reality is that we must stipulate that this House is the sovereign place where the democratic wishes of the people of this country are implemented. If it is necessary to override supranational legislation, whether the Human Rights Act or the European Communities Act, it is our right and our duty to do so.
	The legislative supremacy of this House is what the Bill is all about and it is the reason I tabled new clause 17. I believe that, in the context of the burdens of business and deregulation, this debate has been necessary. I am extremely glad that my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby to support the new clause.

David Howarth: In one of the more arcane Committee debates, it was discovered that the words "local Act" included Acts of Parliament relating to universities, so as new clause 19 still includes those words I declare my interest as a fellow of a Cambridge college and a university reader.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is right: in the end, it comes down to a political, diplomatic choice. It is perfectly open to the House to repeal section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 either in whole or in part, and to do whatever it wants with our relationship with Europe. I would not deny any part of his speech when he was making those remarks, but the question is whether those actions would be wise and on that matter he and I might disagree.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that the best amendment in the group is Government amendment No. 10, which removes clause 1—a very good thing to remove. It is an extraordinary provision that allowed the Government to change any primary legislation at will. The theory that the Government appear to be following, and which they appeared to be following last Wednesday night when we were discussing House of Lords reform, is that by their mere existence as the Government they are entitled to whatever legislation they want. But that is not the constitutional theory on which this country is based. Parliament legislates, not the Government.
	Another point that we tried to make in Committee, and a mistake into which the Minister appeared to be slipping today, is that it is not the motives of Ministers, or those of the Government that matter, but what the Bill actually says. In that regard, new clause 19 is still defective in two ways. The first is that there is still no control over the subject matter to which the Bill applies. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) said, under proposed subsection (6) the provision applies, in principle, to all legislation. In principle, the abolition of jury trial, for example, can be achieved under the Bill by statutory instrument. If new clause 26, which prevents the use of the Bill for amendments to the measure itself and to the Human Rights Act 1998, were passed, even that would not protect jury trial because the Human Rights Act does not in terms, or by implication, protect jury trial. That aspect of our legal tradition is not protected by the European convention on human rights or by our incorporation of it into our law.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that outlandish possibilities were being discussed, but the erosion of the right to trial by jury by the Labour Government is far from an outlandish possibility. Indeed, every time the Prime Minister talks about changing the balance in the criminal justice system he means measures of that sort.
	A second reason why control over subject matter is important is that it would still be possible under new clause 19 to institute major constitutional change by statutory instrument as long as a Minister considered that it would relieve or reduce burdens. That might include abrogation of section 2 of the European Communities Act and would certainly include matters such as the radical reform of local government, which should, in my view, be achieved only by primary legislation. Although the new clause is welcome, it needs to go much further in a number of ways. In a later group, we shall discuss new clause 16, which deals directly with subject matter, but there are other problems with the measure.
	The second major problem is the subjective test. The new clause, like the original provision, leaves the decision about whether use of the Bill is appropriate in the hands of the Minister—if the Minister considers that the conditions for its use are fulfilled. The Minister might consider that jury trial—to take that example again—constitutes an administrative or financial burden. It is right that the new clause excludes from the scope of the Bill burdens on Ministers and Departments, but a Minister could easily consider that jury trial imposed burdens on employers, by removing employees from their workplace for the duration of a trial.
	It is important to recognise the weakness of the subjective test under the new clause. Our amendment (a) would strengthen that test by inserting the word "reasonably", the effect of which would be to heighten the bar over which the Minister must leap to entitle him to use the Bill. In the longer term, the provision would give the courts clearer guidance when considering new orders under judicial review.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision would add an element of objectivity to the test? It would be necessary for a Minister, if pressed, or in judicial review proceedings, to show that there were reasonable grounds on which the reasonableness could be based. There would need to be substantial evidence to support it.

David Howarth: That is an important point. If there were a challenge to ministerial action, it is possible that there would be an attempt at judicial review, but what would be the test applied by the court? Without the word "reasonably", the only test that the court could apply would simply be whether it was true that the Minister indeed considered that the measure was lifting a burden. It would be difficult for a court to get behind a ministerial statement to that effect unless there was clear evidence that what the Minister was saying was not true, or was unbelievable. It is all too believable that a Minister might believe that trial by jury imposed an administrative or financial burden and should be abolished.
	The same point applies to the insertion of the word "reasonably" in clause 3. Throughout the debates on the Bill, Ministers have pointed to the protections in clause 3 as a way of deflecting criticism about the removal of necessary rights and freedoms. There has been a debate, or perhaps a lack of understanding, between opposite sides of the House about what those rights are and which of them are necessary. Labour Members were concerned lest Ministers remove rights such as those relating to the minimum wage under the Bill, but Ministers have told them that under clause 3 those rights are "necessary protection". The problem with that is: who says that they are necessary protection? The answer: the Minister—subjectively. Were the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the Minister, he might have a different view and consider the matter differently from the present Minister.
	Conservative Members were keen to emphasise that a different sort of right was necessary and the Minister tried to reassure them in the opposite direction. The Minister's defence of the Bill has run the risk of contradiction on a number of occasions.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is on to a very good point. Could not a Government of one complexion use clause 3, for example, to remove administrative burdens and financial penalties from company directors, whereas a Government of a different persuasion could use the same provision to remove administrative burdens and financial penalties from trade unions? He is therefore absolutely right to say that there is not adequate protection in clause 3.

David Howarth: Yes, I believe that to be the case. In fact, Ministers from different parties could make opposite decisions on the same matter but still be within the terms of the Bill, because all that it requires is that Ministers consider that certain things are the case.
	The Minister has followed his predecessor in asserting that none of this matters because tomorrow we will pass the Committee veto and all our concerns should fall in at that point. All I say in response is that the Committee veto is not a veto, because the Government retain the right to overturn it in the House as a whole. If it were a Committee veto and there were no appeal against what the Committee decided, the situation might be more interesting, but even then there is the problem to which a number of hon. Members have referred that the Government's in-built majority on all Committees—indeed, their ability to change the membership of Committees in advance, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster no doubt knows from her previous job—is enough at least to throw into doubt whether that aspect of the so-called Committee veto is an adequate protection.
	I find another aspect of new clause 19 particularly disturbing, but I will not refer to it at great length tonight because the best time for that discussion will be tomorrow in a debate on a new clause. However, two amendments in this group deal with the point, and I should explain to the House what they are about. New clause 19, like the old clause 2, contains a provision that allows, by order, legislative power to be transferred to any person. It strikes me as an extraordinary power to grant the Government, and the extent to which the person to whom that power is transferred will be subject to the restrictions in the Bill is not clear. It is that matter to which we will return tomorrow, but it is a major weakness of the Bill that the purpose for which that provision was proposed—it has been proposed again tonight—has never been made properly clear. New clause 19 is an advance on the old clause 1, but it is still deeply defective in many ways. Unless further amendments and further concessions are made, I fear that the Bill is still unacceptable.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I rise in support of new clause 17, and I wish to speak to it quite briefly, but by way of preface I should say that I have an interest to declare in that I have a number of business interests that might conceivably might be beneficiaries of the Bill if it passes into law. From that perspective, I can confirm to the House that over-regulation is the modern scourge. As a population, we are dividing into those who do things and those who stop people doing things. That is having very severe consequences for business activity and, indeed, international competitiveness.
	My other credential for speaking in the debate is that I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and therefore am able to see that the regulatory itch has not abated in the European Union. Every now and then, the European Commission declares war on over-regulation—it did so again last year—but, again, I can report from my perspective on that Committee that, so far, over-regulation is winning that war. It has shifted into new policies, but the overall volume of legislation has not decreased. That is where new clause 17 becomes relevant.
	I wish to remind the House of an example of over-regulation that could become the subject of the Bill. There have been many calls in the debate for hon. Members to give specific examples of regulatory overreach that could engage the House's attention if the Bill is passed. I wish to remind the House that, earlier this year, we passed regulations implementing the artist's resale right, or to give it its French title, the droite de suite regulations, which give living artists, and will eventually give to dead artists as well, a right to a percentage of revenue when their works are resold. The British Government opposed that EU directive, but it was imposed on this country and the House by majority voting. The implementing regulations were debated earlier this year.
	Unfortunately, those regulations got into the hands of the Department of Trade and Industry and, specifically, a weak Minister in another place who spectacularly over-regulated. Instead of implementing that directive to the letter and sticking to what was strictly required by the artist's resale right directive, he ensured that the threshold was not €3,000, but €1,000 for a work of art, thus drawing into the net huge numbers of extra businesses and items and completely contradicting the Prime Minister's and the Government's earlier campaign in Brussels to try to get the directive rejected.
	The Government understood that the directive would be intensely bureaucratic. Very small sums would be collected and possibly redistributed to artists if they could be found. If a work of art was valuable, it would simply not be sold in London; the business would go to New York. That was demonstrated beyond doubt. All those arguments were forgotten by the DTI. I hope that those regulations will be reconsidered in the course of experience, because they will undoubtedly damage London's position as a leading art market, as well as not in any real way enriching poorer artists.
	In a year or two, the Government might wish to amend those regulations, and I hope that they will do so. Given that they are both EU regulations and domestically gold-plated, new clause 17 will be relevant. The House may decide simply to take the regulations back to what is strictly required by the directive; or the House may wish to go further and trespass on the terms of the directive in recognition of the campaign fought, as I have explained, right across the party divide against the directive in the first place. Therefore, it is important that Parliament is aware that those regulations could be amended even though certain requirements are entrenched in a directive. The political judgment at the time might well argue against that, and we might decide not to contradict any provision in the artist's resale right directive, but we do not know. That is a judgment, and it is important that Parliament understands and has it written into the Bill that it has powers to legislate notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
	New clause 17 is entirely unexceptional; it would not direct the House in any way to touch the 1972 Act. Indeed, it does not mention the 1972 Act as an Act of Parliament; it simply makes it clear that, in future, Parliament could legislate notwithstanding the provisions of that Act. We are not repealing the 1972 Act; we are simply reminding the House and putting into primary legislation the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty under which we all operate and have done ever since parliamentary powers were first discussed.
	It is sometimes argued that the 1972 Act is entrenched in some way. Other countries in Europe and around the world have written constitutions that make it impossible for Parliament to legislate in conflict with an entrenched constitution. We do not have that doctrine in this country and if any hon. Member believes that we do, they need to say so now, because otherwise we are proceeding on a false assumption. As long as that doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty endures, I do not find it objectionable to amend the Bill to make it clear that if Parliament explicitly and expressly legislates accordingly, it could override directives that are in pursuance of the 1972 Act.
	That is not a constitutional revolution—rather the opposite. The measure is very modest. I hope that the Government—the Minister has given some fairly unconvincing answers to interventions so far—will address the issue of parliamentary powers. We are not saying that a future House will wish to contradict treaty provisions, although the Government are contemplating doing so at the moment. The Human Rights Act 1998 is now under question. Following a suggestion from the leader of my party, the Government are apparently looking seriously at repealing, amending or replacing certain international provisions of the European convention on human rights. That is a specific example of where we may wish to legislate in contradiction to treaty obligations.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend may care to know that one of the most important tomes on constitutional law unequivocally states:
	"The legislative supremacy of Parliament is not limited by international law. The courts may not hold an Act void on the ground that it contravenes general principles of international law."

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend knows his constitutional law. It is established beyond doubt in all parts of the House that the Dicey doctrine, as I have heard it expressed, endures and that no Parliament can bind a successor. Although the Parliament at the time passed the 1972 Act, that is not entrenched and cannot bind a future Parliament. Also, treaty law is not ipso facto binding in domestic law. Some countries, such as France, have a unitary system. When they sign international treaties, by that act, the treaties are binding in French law. We do not have that system.
	In conclusion, new clause 17 is unexceptional. It clarifies the legal powers of the House and makes explicit the possibility of overriding international treaties and EU provisions. I therefore urge the House to accept it and I hope that we divide on the issue.

Pete Wishart: We come to the House today to watch a rare and wondrous thing; the Government eating a large and probably unpalatable portion of humble pie. The disappointment for all of us involved in the debate is that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy) is not here to share in that, because he would have got a healthy portion of that humble pie. For months, he suggested that the amendments were not necessary, but today we are considering about 50 Government amendments and new clauses. After telling us that we were simply misunderstanding him and that he had no intention of using the powers, the Government are now spelling out how the changes should be taken forward.

Andrew Miller: It is not fair to criticise someone who is not in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy) came to my Committee and spoke to all four relevant Chairs and has done a darn good job in providing the House with an opportunity to discuss an amended version of the Bill that I hope we can all accept.

Pete Wishart: I think that I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I will come to his Committee's report—I hope that he will be patient for that. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire was almost responsible for galvanising the sheer opposition to the measures that were being suggested. The way in which he continued to say that there was no problem or issue was totally disingenuous and we now see the Government scurrying to the Chamber to suggest these amendments and new clauses.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should not allow the Government to get away with the fact that this is not the first time that this has happened. Bill after Bill, we have been told that the particular proposals are innocuous and do not mean what they seem to mean and that we are getting worried about things unnecessarily; Bill after Bill, the Government have to come to the House and taken the stuff out again.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in these matters. His words will be listened to carefully by the Government. He is entirely right that, when we start to scrutinise Bills—I credit the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for providing that function—we see some of the sinister applications of some of that legislation. That is exactly the case here, with what we first presumed was an innocuous Bill. The Government proposed to give themselves almost unprecedented powers to change almost any law by order, rather than having it debated on the Floor of the House. While the Bill was in Committee, the then Minister in charge told us to trust him and that he would never consider highly controversial legislation, without even telling us what "controversial" was. When we asked him to include that in the Bill, he refused. Not having that in the Bill means that the statement is not worth the paper that it is not written on.
	The Public Administration Committee weighed in with its concern. I applaud it for saying that the Bill
	"gives the Government powers which are entirely disproportionate to its stated aims."
	The Committee also wanted to place things beyond the Bill's reach and warned diplomatically that the Government's undertakings that they would limit the use of the powers were meaningless unless they were written in the law. I congratulate the Committee on those remarks.
	A week ago, there was an announcement that there would be further amendments. That was the same night that the Government faced a humiliating gubbing at the hands of the local English electorate. The amendments mean that it is almost like we are considering the Second Reading of the Bill. The debate does not feel like the remaining stages; it feels like a Second Reading.

David Heath: It is a Second Reading of this new first clause; the most important operative clause. That is why it is so important that we have the opportunity to press amendments to it.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The fact that it feels so much like a Second Reading means that the Bill is almost calling out for further scrutiny. We have seen a number of the amendments for the first time in the course of the past week. They need further debate and consideration and it is unfortunate that this House will not consider the important new changes; it will be the other place. We will not have an opportunity to influence that debate, because we do not have seats in the other place. I hope that when the Bill returns to this House, we will get a further opportunity to look at some of the measures. I hope that, when it returns to us, it will be a better Bill for us to consider.
	We have a whole new raft of amendments and new clauses to address. In the main, I concede that most of the concerns have been addressed, but there are still issues and outstanding points that have to be looked at. That is why today's debate has been so important. There is no doubt whatsoever that new clause 19 is an improvement on the former clause 1, but there are still concerns and ambiguities. There are still lots of questions for the Minister to answer.
	For instance, in the case of new clause 19, what constitutes a reduction in burdens remains totally ambiguous. I know that the Government give a list in subsection (3), but when we start to unravel it, as we have done today, we can see that there are issues and problems. We have to address what we should call the Rushcliffe question—after the question that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) put to the Minister today. We could be talking about something that applies to the climate change levy. We have had no satisfactory response from the Government about controversial legislation being addressed through orders under the Bill. The Rushcliffe question deserves an adequate response from the Minister.

David Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of vagueness and ambiguity in the Bill would be at least partly resolved if amendment (a) to new clause 19 were agreed to? If the word "reasonably" was inserted into new clause 19, the question of judicial review would be opened up in a way that would not be possible as the measure stands.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to amendment (a). He is entirely right. Amendments (a) to (e) would improve new clause 19, so I assure him that we will support them. I hope that amendment (a) is pressed to a Division.
	There has been no debate whatsoever about some of the outstanding definitions in the Bill.

Alison Seabeck: If the hon. Gentleman had volunteered to serve on the Committee, he would have been aware that we have had such debates. Perhaps he could have been here on Second Reading, too.

Pete Wishart: We in the minority parties have great difficulty securing places on Committees, so I look forward to the support of the hon. Lady when we try to do so.

Andrew Miller: When the hon. Gentleman is making a bid for membership of the Regulatory Reform Committee, he can tell the usual channels that the Tories never turn up.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I had best move on.
	We have not heard about the definition of "legislation". There is an attempt to define it in subsection (6) of new clause 19, which states that it includes
	"a public general Act or local Act (whether passed before or after the commencement of this section)".
	That would include many Acts of Parliament of constitutional import, including the Scotland Act 1998. Will the Minister tell me whether the Scotland Act would be covered by that definition?

Hywel Williams: And the Government of Wales Act 1998.

Pete Wishart: Could changes be made to the provisions of the Scotland Act and, as my hon. Friend says, the Government of Wales Act without recourse to debate on the Floor of the House?
	We must also consider subsection 7(c) of new clause 19 because although the measure includes an attempt to define "legislation", there is no definition of "enactment". Under the subsection, a ministerial order may provide for the transfer or delegation of
	"functions conferred on any person by any enactment".
	The broad-ranging power would enable Ministers to reconstruct completely many statutory bodies, executive agencies and non-departmental parties simply through subordinate legislation. Furthermore, subsection 7(d) gives Ministers the power to abolish any
	"body or office established by or under an enactment."
	It is noteworthy that subsection (7) uses the word "enactment", although the rest of new clause 19 uses the word "legislation". However, unlike the word "legislation", the word "enactment" does not seem to be defined.
	Several further matters need to be addressed, so it is unfortunate that we have lost parliamentary time for debating a measure that is, in fact, a new Bill. I hope that the Bill will be improved in the other place. I do not want the Minister to choke on his humble pie because he has moved some way to improve the Bill, but I hope that we will have the opportunity to improve it further. I hope that we will have the opportunity to vote on the Liberal Democrat amendments to new clause 19 because they would improve the measure significantly.

Kelvin Hopkins: I apologise to the Minister that I was not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate to hear his speech. I welcome him to his new post and hope that I can co-operate with him to make the Bill better than it is at the moment and better even from how it will stand after it has been amended as the Government propose.
	I was one of the Labour Members who were deeply concerned about the original Bill. When I read clause 1, I found it difficult to believe that the Government were seriously proposing a Bill that would allow them to legislate by order on almost any sphere of government and to amend any Act, including, apparently, the Bill itself. However, improvements have been made, so I am grateful to the Minister's predecessor, who wrote to me about the Bill and discussed it with me at length. My concerns were shared by several Labour Members, and one had to be worried about such a general measure.
	Even in its amended form, the Bill will be too all-inclusive. I would prefer to have a Bill that specified positively what was included, instead of setting out exemptions. Such a Bill would thus specify the areas to which it related, rather than including a general provision to open the way to changing any legislation. Such a change of approach would be a major step towards a Bill that everyone could support.
	I am worried about the question of burdens on business. I am one of those who think that business ought to have some burdens on it. Good regulations exist, but there is an implication that burdens of any kind are bad on business and that business should be as free as possible to do whatever it likes. I do not accept that. Let us consider simple measures, such as building regulations. Some 20 years ago, a builder did some work on my house. I thought that it was not right, so I called in the building inspector and the builder had to do the work again. There was a burden on that builder, but it meant that my house was safe to live in after the work had been done, so it was absolutely right.

Alison Seabeck: We have heard a lot of concerns about regulation from Opposition Members, but people in the City and financial institutions say that the regulations that exist in the City attract financial institutions there from other parts of the world because they know that it will be a safe place to do business.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Regulations can be good or bad; beneficial or disadvantageous. I hope that we will continue to use building regulations.
	Other aspects of regulation can be dealt with annually through the general Bills that come before the House. An obvious example is taxation, which is addressed in clause 5. Any change to taxation can be achieved through each year's Finance Bill. Clause 5 states:
	"Provision under section 2(1) may not impose or increase taxation."
	I know that the wording will be amended, but the Government will still be able to use delegated legislation to change taxation outside a Finance Bill. There is no reason whatsoever for such a provision. Indeed, I would prefer the provision to include the word "change" rather than the phrase "impose or increase" because it implies that imposing or increasing taxation is bad, but that is not necessarily the truth. There are areas of life in which I would like taxes to be increased and, perhaps, less tax in other areas. I would like clause 5 to be taken out of the Bill.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. Finance Bills provide every mechanism for increasing taxation and are subject to proper scrutiny. I hope that he is not suggesting for one moment that we should enter a realm of taxation by the means of an instrument?

Kelvin Hopkins: Precisely. Provisions on taxation are misplaced in the Bill. Taxation should be covered by Finance Bills, and as we have a Finance Bill each year, there is no problem with delay. It is not as if we can legislate on taxation only every five or 10 years.
	A Bill on business is going through the other place. Such a generalised Bill would be a mechanism to make changes that would no doubt help business to run more smoothly. All sorts of general Bills come through the House regularly, so they could be used to make such changes.
	It was suggested that the Government need such an approach on changing legislation because of the frustrations of the legislative process, but I understand that the problems have a lot to do with delays in Departments of State. The difficulties that civil servants have when bringing forward changes is much more of a delaying factor for Government legislation than the House. Short and punchy Bills that make small changes can go through the House quickly with little debate. Such simple Bills would be the appropriate way of dealing with problems that concern the House.
	There are other ways to approach the problems. A number of detailed changes could be made. I much appreciated the speech by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). It was thoughtful and well made. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said. I was surprised to hear that he voted for the Single European Act, which I would not have done at the time. Had he not voted for it, and had his party not voted for it, a lot of grief would have been saved. We would have had a much more loose-limbed European Union, causing much less difficulty for us all in all sorts of ways.
	As I came into the debate late, I do not intend to speak for long. I hope that the Government amendments and what the other place does to the Bill will make it something that we can all support.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) laid bare his soul by suggesting that he had been defective in not appreciating the burden of what the Bill was about. I join him in that state of sin inasmuch as the titles of Bills often deceive us as to their purpose or intent. For example, who could possibly have objected to the Civil Contingencies Bill? It was an important measure. Yet part 2 contained the right of Ministers, down to Whips, by statutory instrument or Order in Council, to change or suspend all the laws of this land with the exception, and only under pressure, of the European convention on human rights and therefore the Human Rights Act 1998. The title of a Bill does not necessarily indicate what it is about. We owe a debt of thanks to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), as we do to the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), for drawing our attention to what the Bill is and was.
	On new clause 19, I accept that, following the furore in the press and the wider reaches of our nation, the Government agreed that the form they had adopted was inappropriate. I still think that the new clause as it stands, as a measure of unwinding parliamentary procedure and the authority of the House, is not satisfactory. It could be satisfactory to some extent if amendment (a) were agreed to. That is crucial. The point was well made that "reasonably" constrains and better defines what it is that the Minister must do, so that he can be challenged in court if he acts unreasonably. It is a critical amendment.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) well made the point about whether we can decrease taxation by order. It is unthinkable that one should do that. I will vote against—confidently—new clause 19 on the basis that, on such a delicate, essential assertion of what is the proper process by which we discuss and consider law, it does not meet the test.
	The only other amendment that I intend to speak to is new clause 17, which I tabled. There is an extraordinarily important principle behind it, and it goes both ways. I made a simple intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend. Is the Bill the way to alter something that has been so important to the life of our nation? I wholly disagree with our membership of the European Community; do not doubt that. I did not stand by and vote for the Single European Act, unlike my more craven hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I voted against a guillotine, and it was guillotined, as is this debate. There are sections of the Bill that we cannot, or are unlikely to, discuss because of the figure of the great guillotine motion. I have spoken against those things all my political life in the House, and it bites us in the end.
	On the disapplication of the European Communities Act 1972, new clause 17 addresses the elephant in our house. The Modernisation Committee went to Finland about two years ago. The Finnish committee that judges and scrutinises European legislation accepted that 80 per cent. of its legislation came from Europe. In the case of the German Bundestag—Mrs. Merkel made reference to it—70 per cent. of its legislation comes from the European Community. Last week—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was in attendance—Vaclav Klaus gave a lecture in London to American business men, saying that 75 to 80 per cent. of the legislation of the Czech Republic emanates from Europe.
	Our Cabinet Office two years ago suggested that, more modestly in Britain, only 40 per cent. of our legislation emanates from the European Community. How can we have a deregulation Bill without acknowledging that the greater part of our legislation, including the statutory instruments that follow it and the regulation that is attendant on it, now emanates from the European Community? In some instances, it has direct application in our law without even troubling the House. We have a process, through statutory instruments, by which those laws are nodded through.
	What is the purpose of the new clause? First, can we ignore the fact that that quantum of legislation is not regarded for the purposes of the Bill? The new clause says no. My second concern, which is more important, relates to the constitutional affirmation accepted by, I think, the hon. Member for Cambridge and articulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I am a more simple Member of the House. The long march to our democracy is summed up by Churchill's exclamation as to who is sovereign: the people are sovereign. The new clause is an expression of that sovereignty. The bypassing of that sovereignty by other means is not appropriate.

Oliver Heald: If my hon. Friend wants new clause 19 to be amended, it has to be passed. Then we would have the opportunity of considering amendment (a). Does he agree that not to pass the new clause would mean that we end up with what was in the Bill originally, which was appalling—namely, that a Minister, by order, could pass any law for any purpose in any way? I hope that he is prepared to accept the logic that the new clause is a bit better, because then amendment (a) might be possible.

Richard Shepherd: No. The effort of the House should go into making a piece of legislation appropriate and correct as we see it. We cannot have a vote on amendment (a) until we have had a vote on new clause 19. My vote—let me set out this condition—is wholly dependent on the Government saying that they accept "reasonable". That is how I would do it. If they say, "No, we will not accept it", then I will not vote for the new clause and will look to the other place to rewrite the Bill. I have no doubt that it will include the reasonable element.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend extend his comments to amendment (b)? Does he accept that we will not know until we have voted on new clause 19 whether amendments (a) and (b) will be called for a vote?

Richard Shepherd: I absolutely accept the point. Again, that reinforces why I will not vote for the new clause until the Minister has conceded, or accepted, the burden of the argument and will accept those amendments. That is a matter of principle. The House, having regard to its own dignity, should not just say that because the previous draft of the Bill was so dreadful and has, properly and rightly, been improved to some extent—I give credit to the Government for that—it does not seek the things that qualify the powers of a Minister. That is the heart of the matter, and why the argument is about ourselves and the sovereignty of this place, which my hon. Friend is trying to promote. This issue is incredibly important for the House, because it is about ourselves, our country and our authority—the authority that this Bill and a raft of other legislation confers, each reducing the power of the House for the benefit of the Executive. That is the struggle.
	Why are we having to amend or to do away with so much legislation? It is because the volume of legislation and the sheer weight of statutory instruments are such that we cannot accord to them the traditional form of repealing an Act of Parliament by another Act of Parliament. It is a short cut. In the modern age we do not give the proper amount of time to deliberation on and consideration of matters before the House. That is what I am arguing for. I hope that the Government will accept amendments (a) and (b), and I hope that the House will acknowledge the importance of the constitutional principle that underlines my hon. Friend's proposal.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a Government who refuse to include the word "reasonable" are suggesting that in some circumstances they wish to act unreasonably and that the word "reasonable" is so reasonable that it would look very unreasonable if they did not accept it?

Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend has made a brilliant point. He and I have made that point about Governments of other complexions who have resisted the concept of reasonableness because the Executive, advised by draftsmen or by their own self-importance, have felt that it is an unreasonable constraint to be reasonably constrained.

Rob Marris: I apologise to the Opposition Front Benchers for not being here earlier, although I was present for the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society of England and Wales, which is a regulated body and therefore might be affected by the Bill.
	I heard earlier, and have heard since returning to the Chamber following meetings, a lot of wounded outrage from Opposition Members, particularly Conservatives. Having sat through most of the Second Reading debate, my recollection is that at its conclusion there was no Division.  [Interruption.] Somebody says that there was a one-line Whip, but I took the trouble to be present and other hon. Members could have done so. There have been howls of outrage from the Opposition because they feel that they missed a trick on Second Reading by not calling a Division.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rob Marris: I shall make my point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was present on Second Reading.
	On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), the then Minister, who is present tonight, said that he did not wish the Bill to be used for controversial measures. Understandably, he was asked what would be considered a controversial measure, and quite reasonably he said that that was a difficult definition which he had been discussing with parliamentary draftsmen and that he would table amendments at a later stage—and he has done so.

David Heath: I make no attempt to justify after the event the position that I took on Second Reading, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that I said clearly that there was a need for a deregulatory Bill but that part 1 was wholly unsatisfactory and that if it remained in the Bill I would be advising my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading. Part 1 will not do.

Rob Marris: I recall the hon. Gentleman saying that, but the amendments before us substantially rewrite part 1, and he must make up his mind whether to vote for them.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that the former Minister came to the House on Second Reading having been unable to work out how to include in the Bill the safeguards, and on Report they are finally appearing. Is that not a classic example of why we have so much bad legislation? It comes to the House too soon, before it is ready. The Minister should have brought the legislation before the House once he had worked out how to include the safeguards that he wanted, so that under our procedures we could have considered them more efficiently, rather than leaving the issue to be discussed in a shorter debate on Report.

Rob Marris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. As often happens in this House, we like to have it both ways. The idea to my mind and for many hon. Members was to have a public debate on this important Bill. We have had that debate in the intervening period. The then Minister put forward proposals and serious reservations were expressed by Opposition Members and by Labour Members, including me, and the Minister said that he would consider them. He has done so, and his successor has come forward with quite wide-ranging amendments, on which I shall remark later.

Pete Wishart: Is not the truth that the Government were told by the Chief Whip in the Lords that they would never have got the Bill through in its original condition?

Rob Marris: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was present on Second Reading—I do not think that he was—but the then Minister made it clear that the Bill was not in the final form that he envisaged would go to the other place. He was entirely honest and open with the House. He said that we needed more safeguards and that he was open to suggestions. He has listened to those suggestions, yet his successor is being slagged off for that.

Greg Knight: Has not the hon. Gentleman just shot his own fox? It is because the Minister made it clear that he was willing to listen to arguments that many of us did not vote against Second Reading.

Rob Marris: The Government have listened to the arguments. They might not have accepted them all, but they have listened—hence the fairly fundamental amendments before us. If amendments that we shall consider today and tomorrow are accepted—it is up to the House whether they are—fairly fundamental safeguards will be in the Bill. There are the five locks of constitutional safeguards. As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Minister, my parliamentary neighbour, I have concerns that we will end up with the same kind of Bill this year that we did five years ago—completely unworkable in the way that most Members would wish because of those safeguards. He referred to the Game Act 1831, which is why the wonderful Bridgewater's butcher that is about 100 m from where I live has a sign outside it. I am sure that Bob will be happy to dispense with that sign.
	I suspect that most hon. Members would be happy if such regulation were got rid of. On the other hand, dealing with major tax increases—or tax cuts, which might still be allowed under clause 5—would not be appropriate under the Bill. There are five locks and among other things they involve two Select Committees—one in this House and one in the other place. Select Committees, certainly in this House, have traditionally had a majority who are members of the Government party. That is the way in which this House has operated since Select Committees were formed—in 1971 or whenever. Anyone who thinks that a Select Committee Chairman or his or her members are patsies have not served on one as I have. I refer not just to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) or whoever his successor might be. I have never come across a Select Committee member who is a patsy. Select Committees will put a block and a lock on a proposal if it is controversial, as I think amendment No. 56 says.

Alison Seabeck: Talking about locks, what seems to be missing in this debate is what the public think. The public's expression of concern over the Bill has had quite a significant impact on the drafting of amendments. We forget that.

Rob Marris: Indeed concern was expressed outside the House. I suspect that much of it was somewhat uninformed in the sense that many of those who expressed concern were not aware of the promises and undertakings given by the then Minister on Second Reading that there would be more safeguards—and there will be if the amendments are passed.
	I speak in favour of the amendments, but I caution my hon. Friend, the present Minister, to be careful that the pendulum does not swing too far the other way so that, if I am fortunate enough still to be a Member in five years' time, I will have to take part in a debate in which people say that the 2006 Act had got rid of only 21 regulations in contradistinction to 19 or whatever it was under the 2001 legislation. Frankly, that will have wasted a whole bunch of the House's time.

Christopher Chope: I had the privilege of speaking on Second Reading, when I said:
	"The Bill is the ultimate guillotine for debate and discussion."—[ Official Report, 9 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 1079.]
	My concerns were not understated, as I cited the Chairman of the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, who said that the measure was the most constitutionally significant Bill for a generation. The new clause is an incredible improvement, but that does not mean that we should accept it willy-nilly. Unfortunately, the Government are adept at manipulating the procedures of the House, so we are in danger of being outmanoeuvred again by the Executive, as we do not have the power to press amendments to the new clause until the new clause has been accepted.

John Gummer: For the sake of people outside the House, will my hon. Friend clarify something? Does he agree that the Government introduced a Bill that they knew would not complete its passage through the House with the aim of introducing provisions that ought to have been included in the Bill in the first place and thus are extremely difficult to correct? We should not accept that constitutional extravagance.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is right. Previous deregulation Bills were subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill goes much further and wider, but it was not subject to such scrutiny. We can only assume that the Government's motive was to present us with a fait accompli. They tried to seduce us into accepting the provision on the ground that it was not as unreasonable as the original proposal. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd): in the absence of ministerial assurances on amendments (a) and (b), I am not minded to vote in support of new clause 19 and, indeed, shall register my opposition. If, however, it is accepted and the amendments are put to the vote, we have the chance to make it less odious. At least we will have had the chance to put our concern on the record in the event that the amendments are not tested.
	My amendment (b) is an important and necessary measure. I appreciate the support that it has received from Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), Liberal Democrat Members and, by implication, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher). The Minister appeared to suggest that it was a good amendment, but went on to say that he would not support it. Indeed, he said that he would seek to oppose it. Unfortunately, we could not establish what he thought was wrong with it.

Robert Smith: The Minister said that we would return to amendment (b), but his words definitely suggested that the new clause should be constrained by the amendment.

Christopher Chope: If that is what the Minister thought, he was right. New clause 19(2) describes the purpose that the Minister would have to establish as one of
	"removing or reducing any burden, or the overall burdens, resulting directly or indirectly for any person from any legislation".
	By my reading, provided that the Minister can establish that the purpose is to remove a burden from one person, even though that would increase the overall burden for 1 million others, there is no reason why he should not use the truncated procedures in the Bill with the limited safeguards that we have debated.
	The title of the new clause—"Power to remove or reduce burdens"—is disingenuous, and we should add the words, "or increase overall burdens". The Government say that they wish to reduce the overall burden, but if that is the case and they do not have a sinister purpose in the Bill, they should accept my amendment (b).

Greg Knight: Can my hon. Friend make his position clear on the amendment? Does he hope that the Chair will allow the House to divide on it, or is he merely alluding to it?

Christopher Chope: I hope that the House will have the chance to divide on it, but I cannot guarantee that, so I am obliged to vote against new clause 19 unless the Minister gives an undertaking at the Dispatch Box to accept amendments (a) and (b). That is the only way in which we can proceed because, following the initiative that the Government have taken, humble Back Benchers cannot vote on the amendments before we vote on the new clause. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend deserves a great deal of credit for the fact that we have two days of debate. Originally, the Government intended that we should have only one day of debate, as they knew that they wanted to make substantial amendments to the Bill. That would have squeezed even more the opportunity for Back Benchers to comment.
	This is an important Bill. I had the privilege of speaking against it on Second Reading, and I served on the Standing Committee. As a result of our efforts in Committee, the Government have begun to see sense, but they still have a long way to go. I look forward to the Minister accepting amendments (a) and (b). As for amendment (c), which proposes that the new clause apply only to public general Acts, it is regrettable that he still insists that it should apply much more widely to local acts, Orders in Council, orders, rules, regulations and so on, as set out in subsection (6). The Bill would be better if the provision were confined to public general Acts. The only local Act that the Government have been able to cite is the Covent Garden Market Act 1961. If they used a truncated provision to change the legislation governing the Covent Garden Market Authority, it could have a severe impact on people who use the authority, businesses that rely on it, landowners and so on. Why should such local legislation not be subject to the full rigour of scrutiny and debate? People may believe that local Acts are less significant, but they are often supremely significant to people who live in the locality that is affected. Under procedures in this Parliament, they may not receive notice of proposed changes until it is too late and the measure has been considered by the Regulatory Reform Committee. The Bill should extend only to public general Acts, not to local Acts.

John Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the Government changing Acts of Parliament passed by the House but prepared by the General Synod of the Church of England? Under the new clause, they could change without question something decided by that forum, which underlines the fact that the provision is nonsense.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point that I hope will be reflected in amendments tabled in another place. It is a pity that we have not had a chance to consider amendments along those lines on Report.
	The Government have a secret agenda in relation to the Bill. It has been exposed to an extent and they have had to pull back from the high watermark of what they were trying to achieve by way of suppressing parliamentary debate and scrutiny. They have fallen back to an intermediate line, which is still too high in terms of what we are giving up as scrutineers of legislation in Parliament. I hope that the Minister will give us assurances that he will go further and provide more safeguards than new clause 19 contains.

Jonathan Djanogly: I declare my interests as they appear in the Register of Members' Interests.
	This has been a complicated debate, not helped by the Government's ineptitude over recent months in taking the Bill through the House. The Government new clauses, including new clause 19, were tabled very late, which has not been satisfactory or productive. Here we are, on Report, debating the main clause, which was tabled only a few days ago.
	The process of the Bill has been bizarre. I have never seen anything like it. On Second Reading, the Government were saying that the Bill was purely a tool for delivering their better regulation agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I rebutted that on Second Reading. We said that it was a gross understatement of the purpose of what became the "abolition of Parliament Bill". We argued that, as a constitutional Bill, it should have had its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. The Government chose not to listen to us, but in retrospect they probably wish they had.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) rightly mentioned the lack of preparation. By the time of the Procedure Committee on 7 February, the then Minister said that he would be able to respond to the Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendations in good time, in advance of the Standing Committee, but when the Standing Committee started on 28 February, the Government had given their response to Committee members only the day before and no Government amendments had been tabled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) correctly pointed out in Committee.
	The timing of the proceedings has been unsatisfactory throughout. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned that in his intervention and noted that that is becoming increasingly common on the Government's part, although it is particularly the case in relation to the Bill. Not least for these reasons, my noble Friends in another place may well want to review carefully the implications of the clause, which has been impossible for us, because of the lack of time and the fact that the Government ripped out the main clauses of the Bill. Even now, they are tabling amendments to change the title of the Bill.
	Government new clause 19, which was tabled only a few days ago, has, along with new clauses 20 and 21, the effect of replacing clauses 1 and 2. These changes, or perhaps I should say climbdowns, will refocus orders that are to be introduced under the Bill towards deregulation, as advocated by the Conservative party since Second Reading. Since the Bill's publication in January, we have consistently expressed grave concerns that the powers granted to the Government were too widely drawn and would result in a severe weakening of parliamentary power, the sidelining of legislative scrutiny and the possibility of a move towards ministerial authoritarian rule.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire noted, we were happy with the Government's announcement on 12 April that they had effectively agreed with the framework arguments advanced over the past few months from the Conservative Benches. We therefore welcome the new clause, which aims to focus the Bill on genuine deregulatory matters, although it would have been helpful to see the new clauses sooner, not least because of the widespread interest in the subject and our belief that other, later amendments should go further than the Government are prepared to accept.
	The Conservative party has always supported measures that would result in the provision of a swift tool for delivering regulatory reform. However, we wanted to ensure that such a tool would not pose a serious challenge to the concept of parliamentary supremacy, which is a central element of the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution. Our policy is aimed at reducing the harm caused to the country by over-regulation introduced by the Government since 1997. The cost of regulation during that period is estimated to have surpassed £50 billion a year, despite the Labour party's manifestos for the 1997, 2001 and 2005 general elections promising to regulate only where necessary and to deregulate where desirable.
	The over-regulation of business is a massive drain on the economy, leads to an inefficient bureaucracy, strangles small businesses and wastes the valuable time of thousands of police officers, nurses, teachers and people in the private sector on filling in forms.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the sum of £50 billion. Quite a large part of that calculation, which I think was made by the British Chambers of Commerce, refers to the national minimum wage. Is he saying that he opposes the national minimum wage as a regulatory burden?

Jonathan Djanogly: The figure does not refer to the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire dealt with that point earlier.
	Over-regulation is severely damaging Britain's international economic competitiveness. As my hon. Friend reminded us, according to the World Economic Forum, between 1997 and 2005, the UK slipped from fourth to 13th in the list of the most competitive countries. The London School of Economics has cited over-regulation as one of the main causes of that decline. Small companies have been disproportionately hit, which is why in new clause 9 we propose that any Minister making an order under part 1 powers must ensure that it is deregulatory as it relates to small business.
	That is also why, in new clause 17, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) seeks to ensure that, where a fast-track deregulation order is made in connection with a provision concerning our EU obligations, it should be legally binding and effective. The Minister responded that that was an attempt to change policy, but my hon. Friend's amendment deserves a more considered approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views.

William Cash: In the context of legislative supremacy and the role of the judiciary, and in the context of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, will my hon. Friend confirm that, irrespective of the rule of law, which insists that they should be independent, it is the duty of judges to give effect to Acts of Parliament, as has been historically, legally and constitutionally the case for generations?

Jonathan Djanogly: That sounds like good law to me. The Minister will, of course, tell me if he thinks otherwise.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) and for Cambridge (David Howarth) expressed concern that the Bill could be used for a wider purpose than striking out business regulations. An example given was the abolition of jury trials. The Minister, fairly, showed the lack of clarity in the 2001 Act and how clauses 5 and 6 answered the important points made, but he did not go far enough. There is more to come out in that respect, probably in the other place. Following an intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), it turned out that the restrictions relating to tax relate only to increases in tax.
	The right hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller)—I congratulate him on being appointed a Privy Councillor—

Andrew Miller: No. That was a joke.

Jonathan Djanogly: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. We have not had many jokes during the debate.
	The hon. Gentleman properly noted that Standing Orders of the House will need to be reviewed in the context of the Bill. I enjoyed hearing his views on the sugar beet order, or rather, the problems in getting rid of it.
	The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cambridge made many valuable points in the debate, not least identifying the posing threat of the laws forcing the Government to review the scope of the Bill in the first place, and also in reducing the scope of the Executive to interpret the provisions of the Bill. Their explanation of why amendment (a) should introduce the word "reasonably" to create objectivity rather than ministerial subjectivity was persuasive.
	I agreed with many of the sentiments about the growth of the power of the Executive and the serious consequences that could follow from that, not least in relation to the Bill, expressed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, but he should have a quick read of the debate on Second Reading, including my remarks.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe noticed the irony in what he called the minor miracle that turned what should have been a positive desire to reduce regulation into the messy Bill that is before us. He stated his position that new clause 19 is still too lax in its wording. I am sure that his arguments on the new clause will be carefully reviewed by colleagues, not least in another place. Many of his comments, not only in relation to veto rights, will be addressed later in our proceedings. We benefited from his experience in his summary of how Government have been nibbling away, as he called it, at parliamentary freedoms over the past 50 years. His comments were strongly supported by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who also spoke up for amendment (a) and new clause 17, and gave a general call—

Andrew Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is not prone to over-exaggeration, slightly got things wrong? The hon. Gentleman will recall that the legislation enacted by his right hon. and learned Friend, in section 2(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, means that a statutory instrument to change VAT could have effect only for a short period. That is notwithstanding all the restraints of the sixth directive. I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly exaggerating the case.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made a general call for proper time to be given to the important changes that are proposed. I think that he was making a general point about legislation being rushed through the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) loaned us the significant benefit of his large experience of deregulation. He questioned whether the provisions in the Bill were the best way to achieve the initial objective. He thought not, and I shall return to that key issue. I like the idea of having an annual deregulation Bill and the implied requirement to tutor civil servants in the merits of deregulation, that being key to the cultural change.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) gave a good example of the dreadful droit de suite law as a showpiece of gold-plating of EU regulations and demonstrated the importance of keeping the 1972 legislation in the context of parliamentary sovereignty.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made a thoughtful speech. I liked his idea of short Bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has closely followed consideration of the Bill, and was active in Committee. He put a good case for amendment (b). He argued that the reduction of the burden for one should not be justified by increasing burdens for others. On that, my hon. Friend has our support.
	Will the Government amendments work? Will deregulation be improved as a result of the new formula that is proposed? The expectations of businesses are high. The Government have talked the talk. In May of last year, the  Financial Times reported that the Bill would be an attempt to slash the estimated £100 billion of the cost of regulation on business. In January, the Minister then responsible was quoted as saying that the Bill is the
	"cornerstone in achieving essential and long-promised reductions in unnecessary red tape."
	It is part of a plan to achieve one of the most radical regulatory reform agendas in the world. The then Minister's press release in January spoke of savings through reducing bureaucracy of £10 billion, equivalent to 1 per cent. of gross domestic product.
	The fact remains that regulations on business have continued to soar. We know that, since 2001, only about 20 regulatory reform orders have been made, although the target was 60 by 2005. On average, with 3,887 new regulations a year, let us say that the Government get really ambitious and raise the target of scrapping regulations from 60 every four years to 60 a year, or even 100 a year. Is that not like putting in a barrier the size of a road hump to stop a tidal wave? Are 60 fewer regulations worth the destruction of parliamentary sovereignty? That is what we were considering in the early stages of the Bill. We came to the conclusion that the answer was no.
	We appreciate that the Government have gone some way towards understanding the issues and addressing the concerns of the House, not least with the amendments. However, in the new atmosphere of realism, will the Minister please care in his remarks to reassess the impact that he thinks that the Bill will have on regulation?

Patrick McFadden: I feel that in some senses the ghost of St. Augustine has been with us in this debate. There have been many speeches from all quarters of the House about how much people want to see regulation cut, but not in the way that is proposed, and perhaps not yet. I think, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said, that that is perhaps a danger for us as we come to debate the amendments. However, I welcome the comments that have been made about new clause 19, especially by the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons. I do not pretend that they embraced the clause with open arms but they at least recognised that the Government had attempted to respond to some of the fears and concerns that have been expressed about the Bill. The Government did not accept that those fears and concerns would necessarily have been realised.
	I shall try to stay out of some of the private battles that we heard this afternoon between my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) and some Opposition Members. There were battles also between some Opposition Members about our membership of the European Union.
	I turn to amendment (b) to the new clause, which concerns burdens and whether they can be reduced overall. New clause 19 permits the "removing or reducing" of a "burden". "Removing or reducing" a burden from one person may possibly increase burdens on another, even if the overall effect is downward in terms of deregulation. The example has been used of perhaps increasing the burden on a million but reducing the burden on one. That is not likely. However we could increase the burden on one and reduce the burden on a million. That is what we mean by saying that the overall effect should be downward. It is the same as the 2001 legislation that would allow the introduction of more targeted or more proportionate burdens in the context of an overall downward trend. New clause 19 also permits the removal or reduction of overall burdens. It could permit the introduction of new burdens if it is done in the context of reducing the burdens overall. For that reason, we may not be able to say yes to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

Christopher Chope: Why does the Minister believe that the new clause, as drafted, does not give permission for an overall increase in burdens?

Patrick McFadden: The Bill provides that under part 2 the purpose is to remove or reduce any burden—including the overall burdens—that result either directly or indirectly for any person under the legislation.

Robert Smith: The clause includes the word "or". The amendment seeks to replace that with "and". With the "or" still in place we can remove any burden but we do not have to remove overall burdens. The overall burden can increase. As I have said, there is an "or". The Minister can say that he is removing a burden even though there is an increase in overall burdens. There is still compliance as things stand.

Patrick McFadden: No, the overall burden would be reduced. We cannot accept amendment (b) because if we did, in the context of reducing the overall burden, a burden could be increased on one person.
	I anticipate that there will be future examples where legislation covering an entire area could be rationalised to benefit those regulated. However, amendment (b) would narrow the order-making power so much that many of the reforms that were possible under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 would no longer be possible.
	I turn to the reasonableness test in amendment (a). The Minister is already under a public duty to reach a reasonable view. We discussed who could object to a reasonableness test, and although the views expressed are on one level true, the amendment would add nothing to the duty that the Minister is already under to act reasonably. Case law has established that if a Minister's decision is not reasonable, it can be struck down by the courts, so the existing subjective test is a real one.

David Howarth: The Minister seems to be confused. The point is that under the subjective test in the Bill as it stands, all that the judicial review will study is whether the Minister considered a particular thing to be the case. If the word "reasonably" is included, deciding whether the Minister acted reasonably in that context becomes a more objective test. The Minister has a dilemma: either the word "reasonably" makes no difference, in which case, he should accept it; or it makes a very big difference and on a ground that he does not want to accept, in which case, he should resist it on that ground.

Patrick McFadden: We are of the view that the amendment would not make a difference. We will reflect on it, but we cannot accept it tonight.
	A number of safeguards will ensure that orders that are beyond the scope of the Bill will not be delivered. Before an order is laid, the Minister will be required to consult widely with the relevant stakeholders. In addition, the Government have undertaken not to use the order-making powers in the Bill to create highly controversial measures, or to force through orders in opposition to the Committees. We will of course hear more about that issue tomorrow.

David Heath: The Minister said that he would reflect on amendment (a), and I find it difficult to understand what he will be reflecting on. But—this is the big "but"—this is the only opportunity that this House has to express an opinion on it. He can reflect as long as he likes, but this House will not have the opportunity to express its opinion unless it does so tonight. So can he reflect a little more quickly, and perhaps accept it?

Patrick McFadden: That is a good try but, as I have said, I cannot say on the Government's behalf that we will accept the amendment tonight.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I want to make some progress, if I may.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) said that the inertia in the process since 2001 was not necessarily the fault of the Select Committees or of the degree of parliamentary scrutiny. He has a strong point; we have to look at the system in the round. There is an argument that Departments will be more reluctant to come forward with regulatory reform orders if they think that the process is so cumbersome that it will be difficult to use. So there is an argument about incentives and how the process works as a whole. But the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who has been a voice of common sense throughout this process, and who has come up with positive and constructive proposals, made a strong point about there being not just a duty on this House to agree the proper scrutiny procedure, but a duty on Departments to pursue this agenda with vigour and enthusiasm.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister therefore accept, on his own interpretation of new clause 19, that it may well result in this procedure being used in circumstances where overall burdens will be increased, rather than decreased?

Patrick McFadden: No, I do not accept that, but it is possible for the burden on some to go up as a new deregulatory process comes into being.
	We had a lengthy debate on new clause 17, mostly between Opposition Members. I tried to follow it, and I hope that I have understood the intention of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) accurately. If I am right, the purpose of his new clause is that orders made under this procedure would not be binding on our Community obligations. He said, I think, to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) that if his new clause were accepted, infraction procedures would occur and various consequences would follow.

William Cash: I did not predicate my argument on the basis that there would be infraction proceedings; rather, I said that they could be a consequence. The stability and growth pact is an example of the rule of law in Europe being destroyed by the attitudes of individual member states. What I am saying is that, where there is an Act of Parliament that is express and unambiguous, even if it is inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972, and where the words "notwithstanding the 1972 Act" are included in such legislation, the legislative supremacy of this House requires the judiciary to give effect to that legislation. That is the simple point that I am making, and it is unchallengeable.

Patrick McFadden: It is unchallengeable in the hon. Gentleman's subjective judgment. The interesting point about new clause 17 is that it is supported by his Front-Bench colleagues, with all the inferences that will be drawn from that. The Conservative party has been re-packaged in recent months, but the point, which might be noticed beyond this debate, is that they are backing this new clause in the knowledge of what the consequences might be.

Oliver Heald: I made it clear that I should be very interested to hear the Minister's views on the new clause. Is he saying that it would change the law, or that it would simply clarify existing law? Is it not just a statement of existing law?

Patrick McFadden: It seeks to go further than our proposals on the European aspects of the Bill, which deal with gold-plating rather than trying to challenge our obligations as members of the European Union, which are a matter of fact.

William Cash: As with the arguments—on which at last the Prime Minister has given way—on the Human Rights Act 1998 in the context of the sovereignty of Parliament and the role of the judiciary, so, in different circumstances but on the same principle, the legislative supremacy of Parliament applies in the context of the European Community. Does the Minister agree with that or not?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman proves my point.
	I should like to turn to some of the other comments made towards the end of our debate. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the Scotland Act 1998. The Bill would have the same relationship to that Act as to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, in the sense that consequential provisions could be made, as set out in clause 8.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) asked about tax. The answer is that orders could be used to reduce tax if that met the purpose of removing burdens and other provisions in the Bill. In reality, however, there is a Budget and a Finance Bill every year, and that is how we deal with tax measures in this House. I hope that that makes the matter clear.

Kelvin Hopkins: As I said, all taxation issues can be dealt with in the Finance Bill every year, and there is no real necessity to include them in this Bill.

Patrick McFadden: Here we come to the question of what regulatory reform orders are likely to be used for. My hon. Friend is right—there is a Budget and a Finance Bill every year precisely for the purposes of making changes to taxation.
	Several hon. Members asked for examples of what the Bill will allow us to do. One example is that of the Charity Commission deregulation, which was undertaken to review the financial thresholds at which certain registration requirements are asked for. Others may include simplifying some transactions with Government, consolidating areas of overlapping legislation, Hampton mergers of regulatory bodies, and streamlining overlapping consent regimes. For instance, the Department of Health wishes to remove a consent regime introduced in the Health Act 1999 because it has proved ineffective, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister undertook to consider proposals for reviewing, repealing and modifying numerous consent regimes with a view to removing burdens on the NHS, local authorities and others.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Since this regulatory reform Bill has itself undergone considerable regulatory reform so far, will it, if it becomes an Act, be a candidate for regulatory reform under its own provisions, so that it is another example of a future Act that needs to be reformed?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman anticipates amendments that we will reach later in the debate. I shall resist outlining those provisions now, as we have that joy to come.
	In the end, we have to make a judgment as to whether we want a deregulatory system that can do the job. New clause 19, with its associated amendments, was our response to fears that the Government were introducing too wide a power. Equally, there is a warning on the other side of the debate. If we legislate on the basis of every scenario in our wildest imaginings about what this legislation may be used for, we will end up with a repeat of the process that we have had twice before, which has achieved a consensus in Parliament but not the purpose that we wished.
	I shall end by reflecting on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee said. It has been suggested in the debate that the Bill is about relieving the burdens on Ministers. That is not the intention of the legislation. Those who feel the burdens are the people and bodies outside the House, including charities, businesses, and voluntary and public sector organisations. They have to deal with the regulation and legislation that we introduce. It is they who feel the effects, and it is to them that we have a duty to regulate in such a way that the power can be used effectively.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the debate, several hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that their view of new clause 19, on which we are about to vote, could be affected by knowing whether a Division was likely to be available on either amendment (a) or amendment (b). Are you in a position to give the House any guidance on whether such a Division might be possible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully to the debate, and I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. If amendment (a) were pressed to a vote, I would accede to a Division on it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 438, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 2, after 'he', insert 'reasonably'.— [Mr. Heath.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 255.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 20
	 — 
	POWER TO PROMOTE REGULATORY PRINCIPLES

'(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order under this section make any provision which he considers would serve the purpose in subsection (2).
	(2) That purpose is securing that regulatory functions are exercised so as to comply with the principles in subsection (3).
	(3) Those principles are that—
	(a) regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent;
	(b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed.
	(4) Subject to this Part, the provision that may be made under subsection (1) for the purpose in subsection (2) includes—
	(a) provision modifying the way in which a regulatory function is exercised by any person,
	(b) provision amending the constitution of a body exercising regulatory functions which is established by or under an enactment,
	(c) provision transferring, or providing for the transfer or delegation of, the regulatory functions conferred on any person,
	(d) provision creating a new body to which, or a new office to the holder of which, functions are transferred under paragraph (c),
	(e) provision abolishing a body or office established by or under an enactment,
	and provision made by amending or repealing any enactment.
	(5) An order under this section may contain such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision made by amending or repealing any enactment or other provision) as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
	(6) An order under this section may bind the Crown.
	(7) An order under this section must be made in accordance with this Part.'. — [Mr. McFadden.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	New clause 20, together with new clause 19, will amend the order-making power in part 1 to focus on better regulation objectives. New clause 20 will provide a power for a Minister, by order, to make provision that he considers will ensure that regulatory functions are exercised so as to comply with the Better Regulation Task Force's five principles of good regulation, which state that regulatory activities must be carried on in a way that is transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed.

Oliver Heald: The Minister may find it helpful if I indicate that we are supportive of new clause 20, and do not feel that he need outline such a sensible measure at huge length.

Patrick McFadden: Having sat through what we have sat through this afternoon, I quite appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
	Making regulatory functions more consistent with those principles is in line with the recommendations in Philip Hampton's 2005 report that regulators should conduct their business in ways that are risk-based. The Hampton report proposed that the principle of risk assessment should be entrenched in regulators so that the burden of enforcement falls on the highest risk businesses and least on those with the best record of compliance.
	Although the Hampton report found that there is much good practice in UK regulation, the proposed order-making power in new clause 20 could be used to effect real further improvement. For example, the report found that fewer than half of the regulators in the Hampton review used risk assessment to reduce enforcement activity on high performing businesses. By being able to make provision modifying the way in which regulatory functions are exercised, the Government could begin to propose improvements that would ensure that more inspection is proportionate to risk and consistent. That would have a real effect on those regulated, because the burden of inspection would be reduced on the vast majority of the regulated and would be focused on the cases in which there was a real problem. New clause 20 would allow a Minister by order to modify the way in which a regulatory function is exercised, to secure that regulatory functions are carried out in accordance with the five principles.

Rob Marris: Would new clause 20 enable a Minister of the Crown, with the safeguards that we hope will be in the Bill, to get rid of some of the many quangos?

Patrick McFadden: Certainly the merger of regulators is an element of the Bill and is possible under the Bill.
	One example may be that a regulator could have regard to the views of a body that represented consumers in that area—such as the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council—so that the regulator's activities are carried out in a way that is more accountable to consumers.
	New clause 20 would also allow a Minister by order to amend the constitution of a body exercising regulatory functions under an enactment if doing so would make it more transparent and accountable. An example could be amending the statute governing a regulator to provide that it has a board structure, with perhaps a proportion of the board being comprised of non-executive directors, to improve accountability and transparency. It would also be possible by order to transfer the regulatory functions of one regulator to another. That power could be used where two regulators exercise oversight of related areas. For instance, where two regulators are operating in closely related areas, to make their work more transparent to the regulated and more proportionate to risk, it may be appropriate to transfer the functions of two regulators to a single regulator.

David Heath: Will the Minister explain to me, because I am not absolutely clear about this point, how new clause 20 relates to clause 23, which excludes some regulators from provisions? I mention that only because he mentioned gas and electricity consumer groups and, of course, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority is one of those specifically excluded from the principles underlying the Bill.

Patrick McFadden: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come back to that at the end of my remarks.
	New clause 20 would also permit the creation of a new body to carry out the functions of existing regulators if the Minister considered that that would be for the purpose of securing that regulatory functions were exercised so as to comply with the five principles.
	Finally, if as a consequence of the creation of a new body or the transferral of a function, another regulatory body becomes obsolete, it may be necessary to abolish it. That, too, would be possible under the order-making power of new clause 20, if the Minister considers that it will ensure that regulatory functions are exercised so as to comply with the five principles of good regulation. It is important that I make it clear at this point that, under new clause 20, an order may propose changes to a body carrying out regulatory functions only if those functions continue to be exercised. Any modification by order of the functions themselves would have to be dealt with under new clause 19, or by way of primary legislation. I assure hon. Members that it is not in any way our intention to erode the independence from Government of those regulators set up by statute. Our aim with this new clause is to have an order-making power that can be used to ensure that all regulators conduct their business in a way that is consistent with the five better regulation principles.
	An order made under new clause 20 will of course be subject to the same checks and balances as any other. Such an order must meet the preconditions in clause 3, and a Minister must consult widely on any proposed order.
	A full explanatory document will be submitted to relevant parliamentary Committees. The Government have also given an undertaking that they will not do anything highly controversial using an order and that an order will not be forced through despite opposition from the relevant parliamentary Committees. As we will discuss tomorrow, the Government have placed on a statutory footing a veto for relevant Committees of either House. That will provide further assurance for those concerned that an order will proceed only if the informed view of the House and another place is satisfied that its outcome is desirable.
	Let me turn to the question asked by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Clause 23 excludes certain economic regulators from being specified by order for the purposes of clauses 20 and 21, which relate to the principles and the code. Those regulators are not excluded from new clause 20. I hope that that clarifies the situation, and I ask hon. Members to accept the new clause.

Oliver Heald: We welcome new clause 20, which, as the Minister said, is designed to promote the regulatory principles that derive from the Hampton review and the five principles of better regulation. There is clearly a role for merging regulators, and there is a proposal to merge 35 national regulators into seven. However, if changes to the role of a major regulator might impact on the public or have a great effect on business, it should be possible for full parliamentary scrutiny to take place. When the former Minister addressed that matter in Committee, I understood that he gave an assurance that that would happen. However, subject to that point, we welcome the new clause as a step in the right direction.

David Heath: I hope that I can also be relatively brief because I support new clause 20. I had intended to be even briefer, but after hearing the Minister's reply to my intervention, I am struggling to reconcile what the new clause says with the provisions of clauses 20 and 21. The Minister must correct me if I have misunderstood him, but he told us that although clause 23 excludes certain regulators from the provisions of clauses 20 and 21, those regulators are not excluded from the provisions of new clause 20.
	We said in Committee that it was an anomaly that the specified regulators were excluded from clause 20, which says:
	"Any person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies must have regard to the principles in subsection (2) in the exercise of the function ... Those principles are that ... (a) regulatory activities should be carried in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent; ... (b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed."
	Sharp-witted Members will have realised that those words also appear in new clause 20. That measure will require a Minister to secure that regulatory functions are exercised by bodies in such as way as to comply with those precise principles, although certain regulators are excluded from those requirements as the Bill stands. There is thus a group of regulators that apparently does not need to comply with those principles by virtue of clause 23, but is required to do so by virtue of new clause 20, which the Minister will be able to use to ensure that regulatory functions are exercised in such a way that they comply with those principles. That seems to be an anomaly, albeit not an unwelcome one because at least the principles are there somewhere. Nevertheless, the anomaly might need to be sorted out at a later stage.

Oliver Heald: Clause 20(3) says that the duty to follow the principles
	"is subject to any other requirement affecting the exercise of the regulatory function."
	As we said in Committee, that would exclude the Financial Services Authority to some extent and other financial regulators if confidentiality is important. However, it may still apply to them subject to that modification. I wonder whether that is what the Minister is saying.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to subsection (3), but it only complicates matters further. We are not clear, because of the way in which procedure works, where the new clause will sit in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us because it is a basic question. I am assuming that it forms part of part 1, but it may be part of part 2. I think the Minister nods to say that it would be in part 1, in which case we have one provision in part 1 and something that could be construed as a different provision in part 2.
	I do not think that that matters so long as everyone understands exactly what applies to them. I fear that there will be confusion unless an explanatory note is produced, so that we all understand how the measure works before it gets to another place. Otherwise, I can foresee at least a day's debate on the misapplication of the new clause and existing clause 23.

Patrick McFadden: On that note, I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman an explanatory note.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21
	 — 
	Power to implement Law Commission recommendations

'(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order under this section make any provision which he considers would serve the purpose in subsection (2).
	(2) That purpose is the implementation of recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.
	(3) In this Part "the United Kingdom Law Commissions" means—
	(a) the Law Commission;
	(b) the Scottish Law Commission; and
	(c) the Northern Ireland Law Commission.
	(4) Subject to this Part, the provision that may be made under subsection (1) includes—
	(a) provision amending or abolishing any rule of law,
	(b) provision codifying rules of law,
	(c) provision conferring functions on any person (including functions of legislating or functions relating to the charging of fees),
	(d) provision modifying the functions conferred on any person by any enactment,
	(e) provision transferring, or providing for the transfer or delegation of, the functions conferred on any person by any enactment,
	(f) provision abolishing a body or office established by or under an enactment,
	and provision made by amending or repealing any enactment.
	(5) An order under this section may contain such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision made by amending or repealing any enactment or other provision) as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
	(6) An order under this section may bind the Crown.
	(7) An order under this section must be made in accordance with this Part.'.— [Bridget Prentice.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to new clause 21, in line 4, leave out 'with or without changes'.
	Amendment (b) to new clause 21, in line 4, leave out 'with or without changes' and insert
	'either without changes or with such changes as are necessary to take into acount any development in the law since the time the recommendations were made.'.
	New clause 10— Law Commission recommendations—
	'(1) In section [Power to implement Law Commission recommendations], "recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions" means proposals in the form of a draft Bill or draft Order, which do not relate to—
	(a) the creation of a new offence that is punishable, or increases the penalty for an existing offence so that it is punishable—
	(i) on indictment, with imprisonment exceeding thirty months; or
	(ii) on summary conviction, with imprisonment exceeding the normal maximum term or a fine exceeding Level 5 on the Standard scale.
	(b) authorisation of forcible entry, search and seizure,
	(c) family law and rights of occupation,
	(d) landlord and tenant law, in so far as it affects the rights of tenants.'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 1, Clause 1, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
	'(b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, either without changes or with such changes as are necessary to take into account any development in the law since the time the recommendations were made.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 23, 27, 33, 34, 40 and 59.

Bridget Prentice: New clause 21 provides a power to implement by order recommendations of any of the UK Law Commissions, with or without changes. It makes the same provision for delivering Law Commission recommendations as set out in provisions contained in clauses 1 and 2, as amended in Committee. The preconditions in clause 3 and the restrictions in the following clauses continue to apply, as does the undertaking given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), now the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, that the power will not be used for highly controversial measures. The new clause is necessary because of the changes made to clauses 1 and 2.

Greg Knight: The Minister says that the new clause is necessary because of changes to the Bill, but why is it necessary at all in the light of Standing Order No. 59, which makes special provision for an accelerated procedure to take place in the House for Law Commission Bills?

Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. As Chair of the Procedure Committee, has, I know, taken a detailed look at the Bill. I am interested in his remarks and would be prepared to reflect on them. However, it is not always appropriate to do everything by Standing Order. It is better to put some things in a Bill.
	It has sometimes taken too long for Governments to implement some of the proposals recommended by the Law Commission. Indeed, its report last year was fairly typical. It revealed that there were 16 accepted but unimplemented reports, with an average waiting time of more than seven years from publication to enactment. Clearly, that is not satisfactory.

David Heath: Why does the hon. Lady feel that there is this long delay in implementation of Law Commission reports? Is it a lack of Bills from the Home Office or the Department for Constitutional Affairs, or is there some other reason?

Bridget Prentice: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman was able to say that with a straight face. As he knows very well, parliamentary time for Bills from a variety of Departments is likely to be precious and it is difficult for space to be made for them. That is one reason why it is important that the Bill allows for the opportunity for Law Commission recommendations to be brought before Parliament in a speedier fashion. That is the very purpose of new clause 21. After all, Law Commissions are by their nature generally apolitical, so it is not that easy to win parliamentary time. That is one reason why proposals might otherwise not be enacted for very many years. That is not good, because people and businesses are not able to benefit from the considered proposals that the Law Commissions have made. For those reasons, I recommend the new clause to the House.
	If I may, I shall refer to the amendments to the new clause and explain to the House why I must ask it to resist them. The problem with amendment (a), which is intended to restrict the scope of the order-making power to implement Law Commission recommendations by ensuring that Ministers cannot change those recommendations in any way if they wish to use the order-making power, is that it is too restrictive. It would not allow any changes to the recommendations. The words "with or without changes" introduce a degree of flexibility into new clause 21. The new clause would therefore avoid the loss of good measures by reason of quibbling arguments that a change is beyond a particular technical parameter, while still preserving the overall rule that the order in question must implement a Law Commission recommendation and not something different from that.

David Gauke: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to subsection (5), which states:
	"An order under this section may contain such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision made by amending or repealing any enactment or other provision) as the Minister making it considers appropriate."
	She said that omitting "with or without changes" would permit dealing with quibbling matters, but subsection (5) deals with the very issue to which she refers.

Bridget Prentice: Subsection (5) does indeed go a long way to achieving what we want to achieve, but it is important that we include in the Bill the fact that amendments to Law Commission recommendations may need to be made. The most obvious example of when that might be necessary, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire gave in Committee, is following a time lapse such as we have discussed, during which other things may have taken place that mean that a recommendation no longer fits the purpose for which it was intended. In that case, changes would have to be made. Amendment (a) would stifle that use.
	My hon. Friend also said in Committee that the words "with or without changes" are not intended to allow Ministers to make proposals that would turn recommendations into something completely different. If proposals are so far removed from the recommendations that they would not, in fact, implement them, under new clause 21 the proposal should not be proceeded with. I would imagine that the Scrutiny Committee would be quick to ensure that that were brought to the House's attention under the new veto provisions to be introduced in the Bill.
	The 2001 Act included numerous technical restrictions that created arbitrary limits on what could be delivered by order. The order-making powers created by the Bill should be flexible enough to achieve the effective delivery of beneficial Law Commission recommendations, which are an important part of the better regulation agenda. The correct approach is not to rule out changes but to allow proposals to be considered by the Committees. If they do not agree that the proposals implement Law Commission recommendations or satisfy the pre-conditions in clause 3 that provide important protection for people's rights, they can veto the order. We may, for example, need a power to make changes before the Law Commission recommendations become legislation. There may be scope for drafting or structural changes if the Government decide to adopt only some of the proposals in a Bill drafted by the commission. It is often necessary to make amendments to reflect changes in the law after a Committee reports. It may be desirable, too, to make material changes to the detail after further consideration or a suggestion from a scrutiny Committee. In response to the question from the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), subsection (5) would not cover all those possibilities. In summary, amendment (a) is unduly restrictive, as it would introduce sterile and time wasting arguments about form and language. We want a procedure that delivers better regulation, not one that absorbs resources in arid legal arguments over technicalities. I therefore cannot support amendment (a), so I hope that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) will withdraw it.
	Amendment (b) is slightly more generous than amendment (a), and is substantially the same as amendment No. 3. It would allow Ministers to change recommendations if it is necessary to take into account any development in the law since the recommendations were made, as I said earlier. It builds the case for such a change—the longer the delay between the publication of the Law Commission recommendations and the delivery of the order, the more likely it is that the law will have to be changed. In such cases, it is no longer sensible to implement the recommendations without changes, because in certain respects they may be out of date. It is important to be able to implement the recommendations with the changes necessary to reflect changes in the law.
	To that extent, I welcome the policy underlying amendment (b). However, it, too, is excessively restrictive. There may be other reasons why changes are necessary or desirable. It may be possible to improve the drafting of the draft legislation proposed by the Law Commission, not least when part of a group of recommendations is to be implemented or several sets of recommendations are drawn together in a single instrument.

David Howarth: I do not want to cast aspersions on the abilities of parliamentary counsel, but I doubt whether they can draft better than the Law Commission. Any conceivable circumstance in which changes need to be made is surely covered by amendment (b) or new clause 21(5). I cannot see that there is room for anything beyond those two measures.

Bridget Prentice: I have no intention of refereeing between parliamentary counsel and the Law Commission to decide who employs the better draftspeople. Any drafting changes made by the commission to draft legislation would be subject to consultation, and it could reflect on the responses.
	A Minister may wish to make a material change. Provided that the order remains an order to implement Law Commission recommendations, they should be able to do so. The change proposed might be as a result of consultation after the publication of the report. It might be that a change is proposed to make the recommendations of the commission more generally accepted. Indeed, as I said earlier, the scrutiny Committees themselves might wish some changes to be made. The correct approach is not to rule out changes, but to allow the proposals to be considered by the Committees. For that reason, I ask the House to resist amendment (b) to new clause 21.

Pete Wishart: Can the Minister confirm that, in new clause 21, the reference to the Scottish Law Commission relates only to issues that are reserved to the Westminster Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998? That is suggested in new clause 21 and in clause 8, but nowhere in the Bill is it specifically stated.

Bridget Prentice: I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's question. It is my understanding that the measure will apply to all the UK Law Commissions. They would all be subject to this part of the Bill.

Rob Marris: On my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), it is not clear to me, particularly since new clause 22 has not been selected, whether new clause 21 would apply to the Northern Ireland Law Commission, which is specifically not mentioned in subsection (3), although it was mentioned in clause 1 of the original Bill.

Bridget Prentice: New clause 21(3) specifies the Law Commission, the Scottish Law Commission and the Northern Ireland Law Commission. I hope that that answers the questions from both my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris)and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
	New clause 10 would rule out the creation of certain new offences and the authorisation of forcible entry, search and seizure. These were possible under clauses 6 and 7. However, Government amendments Nos. 23 and 27 will achieve the same result, so that orders implementing Law Commission recommendations will not have any special treatment in this respect, and the limits in clauses 6 and 7 will apply to these orders, as well as to others. To that extent new clause 10 has been overtaken by events.

Roger Gale: The hon. Lady referred specifically to forcible entry, search and seizure. Does her caveat apply to all the other categories covered in the new clause?

Bridget Prentice: I shall come to the Government amendments that apply to those categories in a moment.
	For clarification, may I say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that he is right. Where matters are devolved, the provision would not apply. It applies only to Westminster legislation that has effect in Scotland.

Oliver Heald: With reference to Scotland, the Minister may be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has pointed out that there is an implied assumption in new clause 21 that all Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission reports and recommendations are non-controversial and may be enacted using the procedure under the Bill. It goes on to state that that is "not necessarily so". Does she accept that some of the measures that the Law Commissions examine are quite controversial?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many of the issues that the Law Commission deals with are controversial. That is one of the reasons why, as an independent apolitical body, it is particularly useful to us in the House for examining those very issues. I have no quibble at all with the idea that some of the issues are controversial. To reassure the Law Society of Scotland, I point out that where issues are controversial, as has been said in earlier debates today and as was said in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, it would not be the Government's intention to put through this system any measure that was particularly controversial. I hope that gives the House some reassurance.
	Secondly, new clause 10 would prevent any order from implementing Law Commission recommendations in the area of family law and rights of occupation or landlord and tenant law in that it relates to the rights of tenants. The Government feel that this is too restrictive because not every proposal is unsuitable for implementation by order. Such blanket prohibitions would create new boundaries. We would need to define family law and the other topics that have been mentioned. We would create, once again, technical limits that have little to do with the merits of the proposal or its suitability for the procedure.
	Some family law and landlord and tenant law proposals would be far too contentious to proceed with other than by primary legislation. The Government have made it clear—I make it clear again this evening—that we will not use the procedure for highly controversial measures. The correct approach is not to rule out reform but to allow proposals to come forward to be considered by the scrutiny Committees. New clause 10 would unnecessarily limit our power and, on that basis, I cannot support it.

Greg Knight: Is there not a weakness in the argument that it is the Government who will determine whether something is highly controversial, in which case the procedure would not be used, or whether something is just controversial, in which case the procedure may be used?

Bridget Prentice: I do not intend to dance on a pin on the difference between highly controversial and controversial. I do not think that controversial issues, as in those terms, would proceed under this system. The scrutiny Committees would have reached a strong decision if they felt that something was controversial and should not be subject to the order-making mechanism. The Government have made it clear that they would take that into account.

John McDonnell: I do not want to get into a philosophical debate about the angels on the head of a pin, but what criteria are to be used to define "controversial"?

Bridget Prentice: There are no criteria to define "controversial" other than according to what we understand in our everyday lives and the usage of the word. I am sure that my hon. Friend was involved in issues in the past that were judged to be highly controversial which are now accepted as being relatively mainstream. My hon. Friend may not appreciate my describing anything that he has done as being mainstream, but he will understand my point that things change. On that basis, we have to be able to define what is controversial now and what might be controversial tomorrow. That is quite difficult.

Roger Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Bridget Prentice: I would like to move on but I will take one more intervention.

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the Minister.
	Hitherto in these arguments the Government have discarded arguments about reasonableness because reasonableness is difficult to define. That has been the Government's stance. Why should we not apply the same yardstick to the issue before us? Why should it be left to the Government and the Law Commission to decide what is controversial and what is not?

Bridget Prentice: The argument is not left purely to the Government. The scrutiny Committees will have a view. It is not the Government who decide what is controversial. I do not think that it would be possible to find a satisfactory legislative definition of controversial, unlike reasonableness. The reasonableness test is well known in law. Judicial review is an opportunity for people to test the reasonableness of a Minister's decision.
	I will give an example. A 1990s report on divorce and the current project on homicide are plainly unsuitable for implementation by order because people have strong feelings about the principles that they address. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to take them through the proposed system. Equally obviously, other reforms are uncontroversial, often technical "lawyers' law" reforms; very important, but politically unexciting. Those are the ones that often struggle to find parliamentary time.
	Amendment No. 3 builds on one possible reason why a change may be necessary. Indeed, the longer the delay between publication of the Law Commission's recommendations and the order being delivered, the more likely, as I said earlier, that the law will have to be changed. So it is important to be able to implement the recommendations with the changes necessary to reflect changes in the law. I will not go over the arguments again, because I explained in respect of earlier amendments the reasons why such an approach would be too restrictive.
	I hope that the House welcomes Government amendment No. 23, which relates to the limits, already contained in clause 6, on the criminal penalties that can be imposed by order. Currently, these restrictions do not apply to orders implementing Law Commission recommendations. The amendment will make orders implementing such recommendations subject to the same limits on maximum criminal penalties to which all other orders are subject. In Committee, the Government agreed to reflect on amendments that proposed deleting the exception relating to criminal penalties imposed by orders implementing Law Commission recommendations. That exception was created to allow orders implementing Law Commission recommendations, notwithstanding the level of penalties proposed. That caused some concern in Committee, even though it seemed likely that the exception would be little used. We have therefore given careful consideration to that concern during the Bill's passage.
	The Government have always intended that the order-making power should work as an effective vehicle for delivering regulatory reform measures, while maintaining necessary protections and safeguards. I hope that Government amendment No. 23 reassures Members that the Bill's order-making power will be used to implement only appropriate measures by order, and that, on that basis, they will be willing to accept it.
	Government amendment No. 27 relates to the limits already in clause 7 prohibiting the authorisation by order of forcible entry, search, seizure or the compelling of the giving of evidence. Currently, those restrictions do not apply to orders implementing Law Commission recommendations. The amendment will make orders implementing such recommendations subject to the general prohibition on authorising by order forcible entry, search, seizure or the compelling of the giving of evidence. We agreed in Committee to reflect on amendments that proposed deleting the exception for orders implementing Law Commission recommendations, and I hope that Government amendment No. 27 offers the same level of reassurance that the Bill's order-making power will be used to implement only appropriate measures by order.
	Government amendments Nos. 33, 34, 40 and 59 are consequential drafting amendments, so I do not propose to discuss them in detail. Suffice it to say that Government amendment No. 33 is made necessary by the amendments to clauses 1 and 2, but it does not change the effect of clause 11(1)(d). Government amendment No. 34 is also made necessary by amendments to clauses 1 and 2, and does not change the effect of clause 11(2). Government amendment No. 40, also made necessary by amendments to clauses 1 and 2, does not change the effect of clause 12(4). Finally, Government amendment No. 59 replaces the now obsolete reference to "section 1(4)" with a reference to subsection (3) of new clause 21.
	On that basis, I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Oliver Heald: New clause 21 would enable a Minister to make orders to implement
	"recommendations of...the...Law Commissions, with or without changes."
	I accept that the Law Commissions are very important, responsible and respectable bodies, and there is no doubt that too few of their recommendations have become law, but one cannot deny that they consider some important and controversial areas. The Minister touched on tenants' rights, provocation in the law of murder and other areas. The question is not the Minister's motives, about which I have not the slightest doubt— [ Interruption. ] I heard something sotto voce which I will not repeat. Bearing in mind the ability of Ministers to change recommendations, if a Minister did not agree with the full Law Commission proposal, expanded it and wished to continue with it, there is nothing in the Bill that would entitle the House to have the full debate and scrutiny that it would wish for. In those circumstances, I cannot be satisfied with what is proposed.
	New clause 10, which I do not intend to press, would have limited the extent of orders based on the Law Commission recommendations. I welcome the Minister's amendments Nos. 23 and 27, which to some extent deal with the point that was made in Committee.

Greg Knight: Before my hon. Friend moves off this point, will he reflect on my point about Standing Order No. 59, which allows for an accelerated procedure in this House for Law Commission proposals? That Standing Order was introduced under the last Conservative Government but has not been used by this Government since 1999, so whose fault is it if a lot of Law Commission reports are gathering dust?

Oliver Heald: As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a telling point. The advantage of the Standing Orders route, if I can put it in that way, is that it has within it the flexibility either to move the Bill through swiftly or, if the House is concerned, to take it through the various stages in our normal way, including a proper Committee stage and Report.
	I do not think that we have quite got there on the question of how to tackle Law Commission Bills. I would be only too happy to sit down with the Minister and other colleagues, if required, to consider how we might better approach it and build on what the Standing Orders already provide.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) tabled amendment (a) in his capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Removing the words, "with or without changes", would put Ministers in a position whereby they could not expand on what the Law Commission had suggested, which would be a good thing. If it reached the point where the Minister had had a bit of delay and it was necessary to make some change to what the Law Commission had recommended, I am sure that Sir Roger Toulson and his committee would be only too happy to be speedy about it and to turn it round, because I know how frustrated they are that they do not get their measures put through. None of these problems is insuperable, but pushing through controversial changes by order without proper protections is not the way forward for the House.
	The veto that the Minister mentioned currently exists in a very restrictive form. It does not mean that a Committee can look at a piece of legislation and say, "No, that is not suitable for the order-making power." It says to the Committee, "If you go through these very rigid steps which are set out in the second part of the veto, you will be able to block the measure." That is not good enough. If we believe in Select Committees and want to empower them, we should trust them.
	Without some serious concession on the veto and perhaps something in Standing Orders as well, I am not satisfied with new clause 21, but if it is passed by the House, I will support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and his Select Committee in their amendment (a).

Andrew Miller: Having listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said, I think that she reflects very sensibly the desire of the Law Commission and this House to make progress on some of the less controversial issues. Clearly, we have to reflect carefully on how we deal with the more controversial ones. I fully endorse the Opposition spokesman's view that this leads us to reflect on what kind of veto the House has, where it can be exercised and by whom. There is a very important point that I invite my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to reflect on before we reach the section on the veto. While I am minded fully to support the principles set out in the new clauses that we are dealing with, I am predicating my remarks on a veto of similar power to that which existed in respect of the 2001 legislation, but on the face of the Bill. The ministerial understanding was one that the House would not tolerate being broken; I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with that. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is right to say that the Government have proposed a veto, but the qualifications that are being proposed create problems for us.
	I want to make a few quick observations on the important contribution made by my hon. Friend the Minister. First, her remarks need to be looked at in the context of the commitment given to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and me by the previous Minister in the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), that there would be significant changes to the Standing Orders available to the House.
	I hope that my second observation will take some of the sting out of hon. Members' concerns. Clause 16 contains provisions that will enable the House to require the Minister to have regard to representations from the outside, as well as any resolution of either House or any recommendations by a Committee of either House charged with dealing with a draft order. On that basis, I believe that new clause 21 makes eminent sense, because the protections are there. However, amendment (b), tabled by the Liberal Democrats, also makes sense. Some of the issues that the Law Commission deals with have gathered dust over a number of years, for the reasons that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee outlined, as well as for many other complex reasons. It might be sensible to make provision for such eventualities, as proposed in amendment (b), although I do not think that amendment (a) is necessary, because of provisions contained elsewhere in the legislation.

Rob Marris: Would not amendment (b) result in our ending up having endless debates on what "necessary" meant?

Andrew Miller: In his previous occupation, my hon. Friend spent many a long hour arguing about the meaning of words such as "necessary" and "reasonable" in front of learned courts, and no doubt getting paid considerably more than he is now. Such arguments are among the regular problems that Parliament has to face.
	Without getting into a tirade about lawyers and their earnings, my final point is that the Bill will contain a veto. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the nature of the veto is mission-critical to ensuring that the spirit of my hon. Friend's remarks can be adhered to throughout the passage of an order. Assuming that the assurances given are delivered on, and with the caveat expressed about the second part of the Liberal Democrat amendment, the new clause ought to be accepted.

David Heath: The intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) drew attention to the words "necessary" and "reasonable". I have always felt that I am necessary and reasonable and that what I want to put into a Bill is necessary and reasonable, although I understand that that might engender debate. In this instance, we need not be very concerned.
	There should be a mechanism for getting Law Commission proposals into law expeditiously and effectively. The first difficulty is ensuring that it is not abused to bring forward matters that are not non-controversial in any way, but that have important impacts with which many would disagree. The second difficulty is avoiding a Government either amending or cherry-picking those proposals along the way, so that what is enacted is different from what the Law Commission proposed. The third is ensuring that, wherever possible, a primary legislative route is used in preference to an order of this kind. I take seriously the point made by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee about the application, or lack of application, of Standing Orders. It seems preposterous that the Government say that they have had no opportunity to enact the long queue of Law Commission proposals when they have not used the mechanisms available in the House to do that.
	It beggars belief to say that there is a lack of legislative opportunity to introduce Law Commission proposals, especially with regard to criminal law, but even with regard to civil law. There is a criminal justice Bill every single year, as I know to my cost because I have served on the Standing Committees on most of them. There is an immigration and asylum Bill every year, without fail. Sometimes, a couple of terrorism Bills are introduced in a single year. There is a queue of legislation coming from the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and it does not take a great deal of ingenuity to attach Law Commission proposals to those Bills. Everything else is attached—criminal justice Bills often look like Christmas trees with the number of baubles attached because they are thought worthy of a few column inches in one of the papers.
	There are other difficulties. When is a Law Commission recommendation a Law Commission recommendation? I never had that satisfactorily explained by the Minister in Committee. Is it the original recommendations, the draft Bill that the Law Commission will produce, or either one? If it is the recommendations, the point made by the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) about a difference in drafting between parliamentary counsel and the Law Commission is of no importance whatever, as the recommendations are what matter. We need clarity on that.
	With regard to amendments (a) and (b) to the new clause, we are still wary about giving Ministers the capacity to introduce changes to Law Commission proposals. We asked time after time in Committee why the Minister needed that power. He repeated five times—I have looked at  Hansard to confirm it—that he needed the power for one reason only: to deal with a situation in which a Law Commission proposal had been hanging around for some time, there had been a substantive development in the law since the time when the recommendation was made, and there was a need to reflect that. That is why we formulated our amendment (b) exactly as the Minister had said at the time that he wanted it to be formulated. We formulated it in that way to meet his requirements: we had no other reason to do so.
	Some Governments are very hard to please. They tell us exactly what they want, we table an amendment to that effect, and then they want something completely different. There are other reasons for which they want to be able to change recommendations, and it is those other reasons that give us cause for alarm in this instance. If the intention is to implement some recommendations and not others, that may completely change the complexion of what the Law Commission proposes. Is the Minister proposing to cherry-pick certain proposals? Are proposals going to be tweaked to make them more acceptable to Ministers or, indeed, Select Committees? I have worries about that as well. The issue should be put before the House so that everyone has a choice to take part in the discussion, not just a select few.
	If the Bill is to contain the mechanism described by the Minister for the fast-tracking of Law Commission proposals—there are new caveats that I welcome, given their applicability to later amendments—it must also incorporate amendment (b), which limits the ability to change the recommendations in a way that the Minister specifically identified in Committee as a necessary prerequisite for effective working of the legislation.
	If the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), presses his amendment, we will support him. I merely ask him to reflect on whether our amendment would not only do the same as his, but allow a small concession to Ministers in the context of what they sought in Committee. In the light of that, he may prefer to support our amendment. In any event, the House should divide on one of the amendments. I must add that if the Procedure Committee, a Select Committee of the House, is to be ignored by Ministers, it sets a poor precedent for the working of the Bill.

Greg Knight: This is not a party-political issue. It is really a matter of judgment. I have reached the conclusion that new clause 21 is not the answer, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said this evening and will withdraw it. If she is not prepared to do so, the new clause will be rendered less offensive if the House accepts amendment (a), which incidentally has cross-party support. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow a Division on the amendment.
	As has been said, new clause 21 seeks to facilitate the implementation of Law Commission recommendations by using a fast-track procedure under the Bill "with or without changes". The Minister objects to the removal of those four words. According to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), if time had elapsed and some of the measures had been implemented because they were deemed urgent, without the words "with or without changes" Ministers would not be able to implement the balance.
	I do not buy that argument, for reasons identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). Subsection (5) of the new clause states:
	"An order under this section may contain such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision made by amending or repealing any enactment or other provision)".
	I think that the power is there.
	One of the duties of the Law Commission—some would argue that it is one of its main tasks—is to codify and bring together legislation on the same subject. Why would we want to split one of its proposals between different pieces of legislation? My reading of subsection (5) is that Ministers could implement proposals that were necessary and repeal any law changes made in the interim, and codify it all under the order-making power. That seems to me to be the right way to proceed.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it is incorrect to assume that a Law Commission recommendation will be uncontroversial. When my Committee took evidence, the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), insisted on using the term "highly controversial" to describe measures to which the provision would not apply—not just controversial, but highly controversial was the description given in each case. If the Minister is saying that she has reflected on that and is willing to lower the threshold, I would be reassured.
	I see no need for the provision to be in the Bill. We have two Standing Orders that could relate to the type of legislation that we have been discussing. Standing Order No. 58, which deals with consolidation measures, states that Second Readings and Third Readings of such measures will be taken forthwith; it therefore provides a much accelerated procedure. Standing Order No. 59, which the Conservatives introduced, with consent, when we were in government, specifically refers to Law Commission Bills and states that they should be referred to a Second Reading Committee. We made those changes with consent—that was how we did business then when we amended Standing Orders, and I regret that that is not what happens now. That Standing Order, which was introduced in 1995, has, I believe—I stand to be corrected by the Minister—not been used by the Government since 1999. One has to ask them why. Why have they not at least tried to use that provision to put Law Commission proposals on to the statute book?
	I am not saying that those two Standing Orders are perfect, but I noted what I regard as a point of good will made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. He said that he was prepared to engage in constructive dialogue with the Minister, perhaps on ways of changing the Standing Orders to deal with such matters. The Modernisation Committee is already examining our processes, and I know that the Procedure Committee would be prepared to consider that very point. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that with a view to not going down the proposed route and to ensuring that the House always has the opportunity, through primary legislation, to consider Law Commission proposals, albeit by an accelerated procedure.

Bridget Prentice: I, too, welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). I am always happy to enter into dialogue with him, and happy to restate that if it helps this evening's debate. However, that does not mean that I have any intention of withdrawing new clause 21. There are times when the accelerated procedures that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has clearly outlined are not appropriate for substantive changes to the law, as opposed to consolidating Bills. I ask him to reflect on that point.

Greg Knight: I am disappointed to hear that. In the light of what the hon. Lady has just said, I shall be one of those seeking to divide the House on the new clause.

David Howarth: In view of the time I shall be brief and add only one point. The importance of the debate is that the Law Commission route is the only one under the Bill whereby Ministers can change the common law; otherwise their powers are restricted to changing statutes. The common law basis of our constitution is well-known; the rules of natural justice, for example, exist only in common law, not in statute.
	The Government have a history of changing Law Commission recommendations. On bad character evidence, for example, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did exactly the opposite of what the Law Commission recommended, so these are serious matters. If the Government cannot bring their desires within either subsection (5) of the new clause or the second part of amendment (b), to take advantage of the power to make changes consequent on the delay in implementing the recommendations, the only proper route is not to make use of the fast-track procedure but to go back to the Law Commission and try to persuade it to take the matter forward.
	 It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 133.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time
	Mr. Speaker  then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
	 Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 4, leave out 'with or without changes'.— [Mr. Greg Knight.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 262.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Northern Ireland

'An order under this Part may not, except by virtue of section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(8), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(5) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(5), make provision to amend or repeal any Northern Ireland legislation.'.— [Hilary Armstrong.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26
	 — 
	Excepted Enactments

'An order under this Part may not make provision amending or repealing any provision of—
	(a) this Part; or
	(b) the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).'. — [Hilary Armstrong.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	 Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could help us. The last group of amendments for consideration today, which we did not have an opportunity to debate at all, included some very important amendments on the constitutional arrangements, particularly the application to the Scotland Act 1998 and the way in which the Bill interacts with Scottish affairs in the Scottish Parliament. Is there any opportunity to discuss those matters tomorrow, given that we have a further day on Report and that under today's timetable we have had no debate whatever of those subjects?

Mr. Speaker: There is not. Under the terms of the programme motion, to which the House agreed, that cannot be done.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

northern ireland

That the draft Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 24th April, be approved .—[Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure and Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.— [Mr. Roy.]

COMMITTEES

Ordered,
	That Mr Geoffrey Hoon and Liz Blackman be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr Jack Straw and Paddy Tipping be added .—[Mr. Roy.]
	 Ordered,
	That Peter Luff be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Greg Knight be added.—[ Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Encompass Health Care Practice

Fraser Kemp: I wish to present a petition from Mrs. Elizabeth Lowrey that has been signed by more than 900 residents of Washington in Tyne and Wear and is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). It concerns changes to the Encompass health care practice, which offers an innovative and dynamic approach to health care in Washington, and states:
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to urge the Sunderland Teaching Primary Care Trust to recognise the current benefits of allowing the existing team to achieve full independent status and continue to provide primary medical care for the community.
	 To lie upon the Table.

PARISH COUNCILLORS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Roy.]

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue of particular concern to my constituent—I shall shortly explain his circumstances—that extends to a much wider constituency of opinion. Many people both inside and outside the House think that the time to take action to try to remedy some of the difficulties in the case is overdue.
	I am grateful to the Minister for Local Government for agreeing to reply to our debate on the model code of conduct for councillors. I accept that it would be inappropriate for him to refer to the specific case of Councillor Alex Riley, but I am grateful that he will deal with the wider issues. It might be helpful if I describe the circumstances of Councillor Riley's case. For some time, he has chaired the parish council in the village of Longstanton, which is several miles north-west of Cambridge.
	As a result of the last regional structure plan and the subsequent county structure plan, a large new town is to be built to the north of Longstanton and Oakington comprising 8,000 to 10,000 homes—subsequently, the local development framework settled on 8,000 homes. That large development is very close to Longstanton, and it will envelop parts of the village. It extends to the north, west and east of the village, and in the original plans it was no more than the distance of a football field from some points of the village.
	As chairman of the parish council, Alex Riley was closely and actively involved in the debate about the structure plans. When it became clear that active planning on the local development framework would begin, he decided to stand for election to represent Longstanton on those issues. In June 2004, he was elected with 70 per cent. of the vote in Longstanton as an independent councillor—the House will observe that this is not a party political matter. From June 2004, he sought to represent the village's views on a range of issues in the local development framework before an outline planning application was made. However, the ethical standards officer alleged that 15 breaches of the code of conduct took place in the space of just five months. I accept that the Minister will not want to comment, but the hearing of that case took place today. It concluded that Councillor Riley was responsible for breaches of the code of conduct but a penalty was not imposed, apart from the fact that he was instructed to receive training in the code. That is ironic, given that he has become insufferably familiar with it to the point of contempt. None the less, in my view—I do not propose to speak for anyone else—those were technical breaches of the code. That is one of the main reasons no penalty has been applied.
	The issue is the extent to which councillors legitimately sent to their council chamber by constituents are able to represent those constituents. The Local Government Act 2000 set out an ethical framework for councillors, including in section 30 a model code of conduct, which South Cambridgeshire district council adopted in 2002. The code identifies two interests—first, personal interests, which can be defined as anything that might be held to affect a councillor's well-being or financial position, or that of their relatives or friends, to a greater extent than it would affect the local population generally. Secondly, there are prejudicial interests—interests that are so significant that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard those interests as likely to prejudice the councillor's judgment of the public interest.
	Those definitions are not at issue. Individually, Councillor Riley and all the other residents of Longstanton have personal and, in almost all cases, a prejudicial interest in relation to these matters. Planning decisions must, of course, be made in the public interest, but local residents have a legitimate expectation that that public interest includes and fully takes account of their views as the people most affected by a planning decision. We must ensure that that interest is properly and accurately reflected.
	There is confusion in South Cambridge district council about how the code of conduct should be applied. Without going into detail, it was clear in 2004 that Councillor Riley received conflicting advice about what his personal and prejudicial interests should mean in relation to his participation in the council's discussions. In October 2005 South Cambridgeshire district council took counsel's opinion. That was necessitated by the fact that the council was coming on to examine the local development framework and an outline planning application from Gallagher, which is the promoter of the large scheme. The Minister need not declare an interest, but English Partnerships, which is part of the Department, owns much of the land on which the town is to be built.
	Counsel's opinion pointed out how the district council should, in accordance with the current law, deal with the councillor. First, a councillor with a prejudicial interest would be required to withdraw whenever a meeting was held. A meeting, for these purposes, included any meeting of the authority—not just meetings that formed part of any decision-making process, but informal meetings, briefing meetings or any meeting whatsoever. Secondly, the further requirement that under the code councillors should not seek improperly to influence a matter should be interpreted to include lobbying or making any written representations to members.
	The code allows dispensations, but counsel's advice to the district council was clear. The standards committee of the council could not use those dispensations to avoid adherence to the code. Counsel instanced some of the very limited circumstances to which dispensations might be applied.
	When counsel was advising the planning authority about what Councillor Riley could do, he came up with three options. The first was that Councillor Riley should no longer be regarded as the route through which representations could be made by villagers, so representations could be made direct to the planning director. The second was that villagers should use another councillor who had no disqualifying interest. The third option was that Councillor Riley should resign. He would then be able to make representations as chairman of the parish council or as a private citizen.
	It is curious that the use of another councillor has been the route through which the district council has proceeded. The necessity for Councillor Riley not to apply improper influence has even extended to the point where he is not allowed to discuss matters in his village with the councillor who has been nominated to be the route through which such representations are to be made. Another councillor on the parish council has been so nominated and the deadening hand of the code seems almost to be extending to the point where Councillor Riley cannot even talk to Councillor Grace, who subsequently talks to Councillor Kindersley, who is the councillor through whom their representations might come. Such is the effect of the way in which the model code has been interpreted.
	You will not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have raised the issue with the Standards Board for England. It responded helpfully in November by saying:
	"The Board shares your view that the current rules can be over-restrictive...and may exclude members from discussing certain matters which their community would expect them to be addressing or even, in certain cases, where they have been elected to represent specific views. Given the changing role of most councillors, the code needs to be seen to be supporting such local advocacy and the democratic right of a community to be represented when key matters which affect that community are under discussion."
	David Prince, the chief executive, went on to say:
	"The Board has also further recommended that the Government should also give local authorities broader powers to grant exemptions to members with prejudicial interests who nevertheless are speaking on behalf of their constituents."
	The board went on to make recommendations to Ministers that flowed from exactly the same points that were made in their letter to me. The Committee on Standards in Public Life separately has made its own recommendations to Government, and I shall quote one of them. It said:
	"In planning decisions the ability of elected members to represent constituents' interests where they have personal and prejudicial interests has been unnecessarily diminished. This should be changed to give any elected member the right to speak (but not vote) for their constituents at a planning committee meeting or any other quasi-regulatory meeting."
	In that sense, we are clear about the direction in which both the board and the committee see we need to go.
	I wrote, of course, to the Minister. He responded helpfully in January, to making it clear that the Standards Boards had made the recommendations, which he was minded to accept. I suppose that I could have rested on that and not exposed the issue to further gaze in the House, but I wanted to use this opportunity to say that I think that the current situation is untenable. In the case of South Cambridgeshire district council, there has been the benefit of counsel's opinion. It is not an arbitrary opinion. We have arrived at the point where, not seeking improper influence, Councillor Riley can barely speak to any of his fellow councillors without it being thought to be an improper influence. He cannot even go to informal meetings, briefing meetings or information meetings in the same way as members of the public attend to ascertain what is happening. He cannot ask questions and he cannot make representations.
	Across the country, I have no doubt that this is not the only example. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) raised an instance not dissimilar to it on 8 November last year. Throughout the country either councillors are unknowingly breaching the code, as Councillor Riley did in 2004, by speaking on matters where they have an interest, even if they know that they do not have to vote—many cases they have no concept of the extent to which the moral code of conduct can be interpreted as constraining them—or we have councillors throughout the country who are being excluded from discussion of the very issues that they know best and about which they have been elected to represent their constituents.
	Councillor Riley and I do not expect that he should be able to vote on issues where he has a personal or prejudicial interest. He does expect to make a full declaration of interests. He expects also that his representations should be made only openly and transparently. He does not expect to undertake private lobbying or to participate in discussions after he has made his representations. He does, however, expect to have access to briefings, and to be able to ask questions and make representations in cases where his council colleagues will be making decisions. He said to me plainly that if he cannot persuade them of the merits of the argument, he will understand and accept that he has failed in his task. It is his responsibility to make the arguments.
	The issue is not settled; Ministers need to make progress. The outline application for the Northstowe development, which encompasses Longstanton, has yet to be considered and determined. Circumstances such as Councillor Riley's will arise elsewhere in the country. It is important that changes to the code be made as a matter of urgency. If the code is not changed under the secondary legislation that local government legislation permits, this negation of democracy will carry on and, far from inspiring confidence in local government, the code of conduct's application will bring local government into disrepute.

Phil Woolas: Congratulations are due to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on bringing to the House's attention the case of his constituent, whose views have been represented. This case also raises wider issues of relevance to the hon. Gentleman's other constituents. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining my responsibilities in this regard; it is always helpful when that happens. I am conscious that whenever we debate parish matters, newspaper headlines reporting our deliberations do not scream off the presses. However, there are some 80,000 parish councils in the country, and in my experience it is wise to take these debates very seriously, because many councils rightly take a close interest in these proceedings. The issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised concerning the code of conduct apply not just to parish councillors, but to councillors across the board.
	I am also grateful for the opportunity to discuss the rules of conduct for councillors in the context of the planning regime. These rules are set out in model codes of conduct for local authority members—including, of course, members of parish councils—with the aim of maintaining the highest standards of public conduct among local authority members. We consider it important to promote such standards for parish councils, as for other tiers of local government.
	As has been said, it is difficult for me to comment on individual circumstances, but where allegations impinge on an individual planning application, that application could be referred to the Secretary of State or to one of her inspectors on appeal. In those circumstances, I would not wish to say anything that might subsequently prejudice the quasi-judicial appeal process.
	Actively promoting high standards of behaviour among local authority members is of course an important objective for any Government. Many men and women devote their time and energy to the service of their communities, and the overwhelming majority of people elected to serve as local authority members already observe the highest standards of conduct. But it is also important to get the balance right—an issue that I will discuss in a moment.
	We cannot disguise—nobody wishes to—the fact that failings occur from time to time, and given that tens of thousands of people are involved, that is going to be so. However, it is worth noting that instances of elected members falling short of the conduct expected of them are very rare indeed. Such misconduct not only harms the community that members are elected to serve; it can damage the wider reputation of local government and undermine the public's trust in, and confidence in, the system as a whole. I noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's reference to the pendulum perhaps swinging too far, as some might see it, and to that itself bringing the regime into disrepute. The need to maintain public trust is just as true for parish councils as it is for other tiers of government.
	The planning system involves a considerable amount of discretion, and councillors on a planning committee may arrive at a decision based on a variety of considerations. However, the law defines that decision-making duty. Failure to act within the confines of these provisions may render the council open to legal challenge by means of judicial review. The role of an elected member on a local authority planning committee involves balancing the need to represent the interests of individual constituents and the community with the need to maintain an ethic of impartial decision making on what can be, and often are, highly controversial proposals.
	In 1997, the Government committed themselves to reinvigorating local democracy, focusing on enabling councils to provide the local leadership that their communities need and to deliver the services they want. In order to tackle the need for a higher degree of public trust, we introduced a new framework under the Local Government Act 2000 to promote standards of ethical behaviour. We felt that the new framework must help to dispel public criticism about those in public life by demonstrating clearly that unethical behaviour is just as unacceptable to those who have been elected as it is to the communities that they represent.
	The framework indicates the high standards that are expected and requires an explicit commitment to them. Let me remind the House that the most significant provisions of the ethical regime were: the introduction of new statutory codes of conduct; the establishment in each authority of a standards committee to provide support and guidance to members on the requirements of their local code; and the creation of what was then a new body, the Standards Board for England, to promote high standards nationally and to investigate alleged breaches of the code in an independent and consistent manner.
	The codes of conduct set out the conduct that is expected of members and provide a sensible framework for handling personal interests which should ensure that, providing that they have no prejudicial interests, councillors can take part in discussions and decisions and so represent their electors to the best of their ability. From May 2002, the provisions of the codes have applied to all councillors, and any allegations that the code has been breached can be reported to the Standards Board, which can then decide whether to investigate.
	The model codes provide that members have a prejudicial interest in a matter if, as the hon. Gentleman said, the interest is one that a member of the public would reasonably regard as so significant as to be likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest. A member with a prejudicial interest is required to withdraw from the meeting at which the matter is discussed.
	The codes also provide that members should not use their position to confer an advantage for themselves or any other person. Various further guidance documents have been issued to assist members in carrying out their roles in respect of the planning regime and the need to have regard to their own personal and prejudicial interests. Chapter 8 of the document, "Probity in Planning", which is issued by the Local Government Association, makes it clear that councillors who have openly declared a view on an application should not use their position to lobby other councillors or organise a caucus to support their position. Elsewhere in chapter 8, it is made clear that other political meetings should not be used to reach a decision in advance of the committee which will make the decision.
	A document prepared by the LGA, "Member engagement in planning matters", gives similar advice. The purpose of that document is to explain to members how they can become more engaged in discussions without fettering their discretion. However, if they do, the guidance is clear. It states:
	"Members who do take an active stand in support or assistance to an application should withdraw from the planning committee deliberations. Responding to lobbying is fully legitimate where a councillor openly admits an interest in the outcome of deliberations and withdraws from the discussions on which they have a particularly strong view and stands down for the period while the item is under discussion."
	We wish to make the planning system fairer and more transparent. Accordingly, my Department continues to work with its partner bodies, such as the Local Government Association, to produce advice and guidance for elected members on propriety issues in planning. Indeed, the Planning Advisory Service, which is an arm of the Improvement and Development Agency, is financed by the Government. Its creation was one of the benefits of the £600 million in planning delivery grant allocation made available to improve the system.
	When they were initially issued in 2002, the model codes were generally welcomed. There were certainly some complaints from the smaller parish and town councils, particularly about the requirements to register interests. It was feared that a sledgehammer was being used to crack a nut. However, many of the concerns have been eased as councillors have grown familiar with the conduct regime, and it now has broad support. This has been assisted by the Standards Board's own provision of support, guidance and training to parishes on the operation of the system.
	It is sometimes suggested that the introduction of the code of conduct for parishes has caused parish councillors to resign. I took those fears very seriously, because it is obviously important to get the balance right. However, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that there is little or no evidence to suggest that significant numbers of councillors have resigned as a result of the code.
	That brings me to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate. The recent reports of the Graham Committee and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee—which was so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole)— considered the future of the local government ethical regime. They supported the continuing inclusion of parish councillors within that regime.
	The conduct regime has now been in operation for four years. We have recently reviewed it, and our proposals for change were set out in our discussion paper of 15 December 2005. They included proposals to make decision making under the regime more locally based, to make the Standards Board a more strategic regulatory body, and to make the code of conduct simpler, clearer and more proportionate. We are hoping to make changes to ensure that the framework meets the objectives that it was created to achieve, and that the lessons deriving from practical experience in operating the rules are learned.
	As part of our follow-up to the discussion paper, our review of the code of conduct will take into account the recommendations on changes to the code made by the Standards Board. These include proposals for a reduction in the number of interests that members need to declare, and for a relaxation of the rules relating to prejudicial interests to support the advocacy role played by members, particularly in respect of dual-hatted members—that is, those who are members of more than one public body.
	However, there is a continuing need to ensure that measures are in place to provide confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest, and that clear conflicts of interest—for example, where members stand to gain personally from a decision over and above the gain to others in the community—will continue to be proscribed by the code of conduct.
	We believe that the vast majority of local councillors are honest and committed to the service of their communities. We wish to demonstrate to local communities that their councillors are signed up to the highest standards of conduct.

Andrew Lansley: It is now some six months since the Minister's colleague replied to a similar debate, and five months since the Government published their discussion paper. When are Ministers going to turn what appear—in principle, at least—to be the good recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Standards Board into practical changes, by means of a statutory instrument on the model codes of conduct?

Phil Woolas: That is the crux of the matter. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman is to get on with this. Local authorities are looking to us to make announcements on this issue. I am also conscious that there are other cases—which I am extremely grateful that he has not mentioned tonight—that have thrown up some lessons to be learned about the way in which we deal with these matters. I cannot give him a specific timetable, but I will, as soon as I am in a position to do so.
	We need to provide assurance that standards are being maintained. That is why the ethical regime is vital, and why it is important that all tiers of local government, including parishes, should follow the codes of conduct. We should also learn the lessons of the past four years and do the best we can to ensure that there is consensus across the three tiers of local government in regard to the changes that we are seeking to introduce.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.